 Rwy'n gwybod i'n dweud. Rwy'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'r16 y Pryddiant Cymru i ddododdu ddegi visiol gyda hyfryd â bapysau. Mae'r prifysgolau yn ei ddod y cwrthigau a ddod yn ei ddod i'r format hynny, ddweud mwyaf sy'n iawn i'r cyddiadau cymdeithasol. Rwy'n meddwl i ddweud o ffordd a wedyn ni ddiwod, ac ni featuredd i'r pryd gennym ni Поэтому ond mae hynt i'r jewch. Mae'n ddweud ond mae'r etym ni wedi wedi bod ar gyfer dwylo ei ddweud, ond we have had an apology and Monica Lennon unfortunately can't make it this morning. We move to agenda item 1, which is decision on taking business in private. The committee will agree whether to take item 7 consideration of its annual report on private. Are we agreed to that? Agenda item 2 is progress with housing supply and the joint housing delivery plan for Scotland 2015-20. The committee will take evidence from Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing, Andrew Mott, Head of Housing Market Strategy and North Programmes, More Homes Division and William Fleming, Head Housing Services, Polish Unit and Scottish Government. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming along this morning and can ask the minister to make some opening remarks. Good morning, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to come to the committee today to update you on progress and inform you of the future work plan on housing matters. I hope that you have found the papers that were circulated in advance useful and that they might help to frame our discussion. Paper 1 explains how the joint housing policy and delivery group is approaching delivery of the joint housing delivery plan, which was published in 2015. This paper explains how the GPDG has evolved in its approach over time, but also how the outcomes that are identified in the plan continue to be important in shaping its work. It also includes a forward look for future plenary group meetings. When I first met the GPDG in November 2016, I encouraged them to be positive and practical. They have taken up that challenge and this has been reflected through discussions ranging from infrastructure to homelessness, increasing housing supply to welfare reform and disabled people's housing to value for money. I would like to take this opportunity to note my appreciation for all the hard work and commitment from members of the GPDG, especially Tom Barclay, our external co-chair. I and my ministerial colleagues value their contribution to helping us to achieve our ambition for everyone in Scotland to have access to a good quality, warm and affordable home. Paper 2 picks out some key milestones that we have already met in 2018 and sets out what we anticipate for the rest of 2018 and looking further ahead into 2019. I am pleased with the progress that the Government is making and members will be pleased to hear that I am not going to read you out a long list of our achievements right now. However, I am not complacent either, it has to be said, convener. Scotland's housing system faces a number of challenges, including an ageing population, the UK Government's welfare reforms and approach to Brexit. Delivering our ambitions to tackle homelessness and child poverty are also issues that we have to face, as is making sure that our fire safety and building standards are always fit for purpose. Of course, mitigating the impact of adapting to the effects of climate change are also very much in our agenda. We are already working hard to respond to those challenges, but success will require everyone to play their part. Convener, I hope that this is helpful context as you consider the committee's future work plan. It certainly is, and I know that members will want to look at matters such as the types of houses that have been built, where they have been built and the affordability of those houses. We will come to all of that, but we can maybe start off with the numbers of houses that have been built. That might be a reasonable starting point. The commitment is that 50,000 affordable houses and a £3 billion investment over the lifetime of this Parliament. What is the progress in relation to that, minister? You are right to point out that we are intent on delivering 50,000 affordable homes, 35,000 for social rent over the course of this Parliament, backed by £3 billion of investment over the peace. As it stands at this moment in time, we are driving forward with that programme. We have ensured that all local authorities have resourced planning assumptions for the next three years to give them the comfort to move forward. Over £756 million is being made available this year for the affordable housing programme. We are not expecting that 50,000 to be split into 10,000 a year, as we have said previously. We are in a situation whereby we know that there will be incremental growth over the peace. Statistics published on 13 March showed that, in the first seven quarters of the programme, that is to December 2017, 11,758 homes had been delivered, equating to almost a quarter, 24 per cent, of the total homes required. That breaks down to 6,874 social completions, 1,464 affordable rent, mid-market rent and 3,420 low-cost home ownership. Although I am not complacent, I think that that bill will allow us the strong foundations to build on and to achieve the 50,000 affordable homes target. That has helped the other members. I want to look at those figures a little bit more, but the figures that I would like to look at is that there is a lot of money that has been put in and it is all really welcome. If I have my numbers right in this financial year, it is £568 million going to local authorities in 2019-20, it is £591 million, and in 2020-21 it is £630 million. Those are fantastic figures. I apologise for now focusing on the uncertainty, because those are good figures that will drive towards that 50,000 target. My local authority, for example, would really welcome those figures if they are enjoying spending the money in partnership with local authorities, housing associations and planning ahead, but those three years of budgeting and resource assumptions that they are getting are fantastic for planning ahead. What happens after 2020-21? Local authorities and housing associations are building up capacity and headcount in the system. What happens? What certainty can you give beyond 2020-21? You are right to point out that this year, £591 million will go directly to local authorities. The programme itself is £756 million. Next year, as you have said, £630 million will rise. That is £1.79 billion over the piece of those planning assumptions. I have to say that it is quite unusual for us to be in the position to give comfort in terms of three-year budgeting. In terms of beyond 2021, the cabinet secretary at a recent conference stated that we will talk to partners across the board. From that CEIH conference, she reiterated the point that we will continue to speak to stakeholders as we develop our plans beyond 2021. Work will begin on all that later on this year, so we hope to be in a position with the input of stakeholders to say sometime maybe next year, tail end of next year, exactly what our plans are for beyond 2021. However, the key thing is gathering up the views of stakeholders and partners as the cabinet secretary pointed out at the CEIH conference. That is helpful. The final question for me and Mr Wightman to explore some more of this further. I see from my notes that, if you look at the affordable supply out-term report 2016-17, that 14 local authorities spend more than their RPA budgets, 14 spend less, and I have a note here saying that four spend roughly the same. Is that just slippaging projects, or do we have to look again at what local authorities are getting and how much money? The Government has made it quite plain. I have made it quite clear, as is the First Minister, that if local authorities are unable to spend up to their resource planning assumption figure, we will move that money to areas that can spend that money. I hope that all local authorities would put in place plans to ensure that they can spend the amount of money that has been allocated to them. I recognise that, for some places, it has been difficult to reach the point of building up the capacity to deliver. I hope that that will continue to improve. I recognise that, in some areas, there is a little bit more difficulty in some aspects of delivery. I have also said to local authorities that they should build slippage into their programmes in case they are one of the authorities that ends up getting more money because there has been the inability to spend elsewhere. We will continue to monitor all of that. I know from the many discussions that I have had with housing conveners that they want to ensure that local authorities do the very best that they possibly can. However, we will monitor all of that. I think that it would be fair to say that that situation is improving. On the point of the 50,000 target, in the Shelter's recent report on review of strategic investment plans for affordable housing, its analysis suggests that 96 per cent of dwellings may be new-build. Further 2 per cent may be acquisitions of one form or another, and 2 per cent may involve refurbishment. On the stats, from April 2016 to end of December 2017, 62 per cent are new-builds and 31 per cent are off the shelf. 62 per cent new-build at the moment, Shelter's suggesting that 96 per cent will be. What is your view on how many of the 50,000 will actually be newly-built properties, given that the SNP manifesto said that it will build at least 50,000? The SNP manifesto said that we would deliver 50,000 affordable homes if I remember rightly. Local authorities have to make decisions about what is best for their area. I am pleased that there are many new houses being built, but I also recognise that, in some places, it would be advantageous for the local authorities to buy off the shelf or to buy back properties. If they see that as being the right thing to do, it is the knowledge that they have best to know exactly what is required. Having appeared in front of the committee before, I think that, if I remember rightly, it was you, convener, that questioned me about giving local authorities the flexibility to buy back, and we have that flexibility in place. I am pleased at the Shelter's CIH, Equality and Human Rights Commission report, because it shows that we are on track to deliver on the 50,000 target. Obviously, they have done a fairly substantial analysis of strategic housing investment plans. As the committee is very well, I have become a bit anorakish myself in that regard. It is good to see that their analysis is not that much different to our own. I will just briefly say that the manifesto says clearly that it is about building, but I am just wondering whether it is 96 per cent or 62 per cent. Are you saying that you are leaving this to local authorities to decide how best to fix that balance? As I have said, it is up to local authorities through their local housing strategies and other strategies to come up with what is best for their area, in terms of delivering on the 50,000 homes target. I do not have those numbers off the top of my head, and I would have to go and look again at the report from Shelter and compare it with our own analysis. I will write to the committee if I can about those numbers. The key thing about local delivery is meeting local need. Local authorities should be doing what is best for the people in their area to expand the amount of housing that is available for social rent to expand the amount of affordable housing overall. Just a couple of areas that I want to explore, and that is housing for older people and housing for disabled people, if that is okay. I have asked you a number of written questions over the months. I do not expect you to remember them, but relating to the refreshed strategy for older people's housing, you told me that it would be published last year. You told me that it would be published later last year. Then it became spring of this year, and your latest answer is that this will be published sometime this parliamentary term. Can you tell us when this refreshed strategy will be published? If we are talking about the local housing strategy, there is the guidance for the local housing strategy, then there is work on going at this moment, and my expectation is that that refresh will be completed by the end of this year. If we look at our commitments in a fairer Scotland for disabled people, we said that we would refresh that strategy. Many members will have seen the report last week from the equality and human rights commission around housing for disabled people across the UK. There were a number of recommendations in that report, which were applicable to Scotland. I want to ensure that we get the guidance absolutely right on all of that, so that we are providing, delivering more homes, more wheelchair-accessible homes in particular, to meet the needs of folk right across the country. Beyond that, convener, I do not think that we should be necessarily reliant on the refresh of guidance for strategies alone. I think that the common sense approach needs to take place, and local authorities need to look at the information and the data that they have already in terms of formulating what is required in their area to meet the needs of disabled people. They have the ability to look at their current housing waiting lists and could ask housing associations in their area for the same to see exactly what is required and get on with the job of delivery. As I have said to the committee previously, while I am unwilling to open up the kind of worms that is negotiations around about subsidy, I have told local authorities that they can talk to my officials around about subsidy rates for specialised housing or for larger housing types, so that we can go ahead and ensure that delivery in places right across the country. As it stands at the moment, 91 per cent of the housing that we are delivering through the affordable housing programme is housing for varying needs. We are future proofing what we are building at this moment in time. I recognise that there is a way to go here. I do not want to rush this. I want to make sure that we get it right, but beyond the reliance on the guidance and the strategy itself, I want local authorities to take the common sense approach and see exactly what waiting lists in their area show in order for them to make plans to deliver. I will ask you about the housing for disabled, but my first question was specifically about the review of housing for older people. Are we clear that that refresh is going to be this year? That refresh, I will write to you, given you a definite of when that is due. That is a piece of work—sorry, I picture up there wrong, Mr Simpson—a piece of work that we do jointly with COSLA. There is a joint sign-off, if I remember rightly. I do not want to mislead the committee by giving a date that is not completely accurate, so I will write to the committee and let you know when that is due for publication. I will now ask about housing for disabled people. You mentioned the report that came out last week from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, UK-wide, but it split it down into the various countries of the UK. It made for pretty grim reading, let's be honest, across the UK. Disabled people report a severe shortage of accessible houses across all tenures. Disabled people can experience serious deterioration in their mental wellbeing due to living in unsuitable accommodation. Scotland's Pacific building standards in Scotland have produced houses that are generally inaccessible, particularly for people who use wheelchairs. The result is that, in Scotland, only 0.7 per cent of Scottish local authority housing and 1.5 per cent of housing managed by registered social house landlords is accessible for wheelchair users. It makes the point that councils do not set targets for accessible housing and calls for a 10 per cent target. I wonder if you share the concern, and agree that there should be targets. I welcome the report from the EHCR. We will consider its recommendations carefully. The Government believes that everyone should have a home that suits their needs, whether that is a home that is the right size, location or flexibility. As I pointed out previously, 91 per cent of the homes that we are delivering at this moment in time in the social programme are housing for varying needs, which makes it easier to make adaptation in the future if that is required. I have made no bones about the fact that I want to see more wheelchair-accessible housing delivered throughout Scotland, and that is one of the reasons why I have told local authorities on numerous occasions that there is flexibility around about subsidy to deliver in this sphere. Mr Simpson says that there are no targets. If you look at the strategic housing investment plans of many of the local authorities, they set out their ambitions. Although the EHCR report talks about a 10 per cent target, I have to be honest and say that I do not necessarily want to see an arbitrary figure plucked from the air around about what is required. If I remember rightly, I think that it is Angus Council's strategic housing investment plan that states 16 per cent of the housing that they are delivering should be for specialist need. I would like local authorities, rather than just pick an arbitrary target or for us to set an arbitrary target at a national level, to get down to the job of seeing exactly what is required in the area and build that in to their strategic housing investment plans in the future. The refresh of the local housing strategies guidance will set out our ambition in that regard and our expectation. Beyond that, I think that what is required is that logical approach for councils and housing associations to use the data that is already available to them in terms of who is on their waiting lists to set out what they actually need to do in that regard. The EHCR report includes a number of recommendations. My intention is to talk to stakeholders around a number of those things. I have already met on two occasions once before the publication of the report and once after the publication of the report with Jeane Freeman, who is obviously the minister responsible for the delivery of our disability plan. She wants to get this right, I want to get this right and we will look very carefully at all the recommendations that are in that EHRC report to try to ensure that we better the lives of many folk who currently are not in suitable housing. I have questions on other areas but that is for disabled I will take you back in a little bit later. Affordable housing means different things to different groups and different individuals. It would be good to know what the Scottish Government defines as affordable housing. The Scottish Government planning policy defines affordable housing broadly as housing of a reasonable quality that is affordable to people on modest incomes. That includes social rented accommodation, mid-market rented accommodation, shared ownership, shared equity, discounted low-cost housing for sale, including plots for self-build and low-cost housing without subsidy. Affordable housing in the context of the 50,000 affordable homes target includes homes for social rent and mid-market rent, as well as homes for low-cost home ownership. I am sorry for reading that out, convener, but I thought that I would just state that it is written. When we talk about affordable rent, you have itemised that a number of categories come forward from that. Within the report on tackling child poverty and the plan, we talk about working with partnerships to ensure that that becomes the case. Can I ask for some examples of what you are actually doing in partnership to ensure that we do have that affordable rent? First of all, I should say that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to ending child poverty. That is one of the reasons why we are currently looking at what is driving costs for social landlords and to examine together the opportunity to reduce those costs. We all support the sector to expand its own improvement, innovation and efficiency work. We are working with partners in the social housing sphere to understand how savings can be made, for example, even within the affordable housing programme, without reducing quality, to ensure that we can do our very best in investing while keeping rents at an affordable level. It is up to local authorities to assess a number of those things. It is up to housing associations to set rent levels. Obviously, we have rules around about those bodies consulting with tenants around about affordability and about increases in rent. I know that, in certain places in the past little while, there have been some folk that have been unhappy with the rent rises that have been proposed in their areas. In some of those cases, the housing associations have looked at that again and have reduced the increase. We are committed to continue to look at that. A combination of my officials and others are looking in depth. We will continue to have discussions with partners to ensure that we can help the sector to reduce costs and that, hopefully, we will keep the rents lower. You make a very valid point that it is important to have that dialogue between yourselves, the associations and the housing sector to ensure that that becomes the case, because what people have seen is a year-on-year increase, and that has taken place. However, I would ask about the housing affordability and your budget priorities for the future. How do you see that balancing to ensure that you capture and maintain and retain that system? As we expand in terms of the programme and we deliver, obviously, one of the things that will happen there is that it will give people more options in terms of where they live. Although we are touching upon some of the difficulties—a small amount of difficulties, I would say—that there are in the social sector about rents, I do not hear many people in the social sector talking about rent increases to the degree that I do in terms of those folks who are currently in the private rented sector. As we continue to deliver more social housing, I think that that gives folk the ability to maybe shift from the private rented sector into the social sector, thus reducing their rents. The other thing about rent itself is the difficulty that there has been with welfare reform and, of course, the cap that has been put in place. Obviously, we are seeing some difficulties already in places where universal credit has been rolled out in Scotland, particularly around the Inverness area and East Lothian. I would ask the UK Government to look again at its benefit cap policy, to look again at how universal credit is having a major impact in some folks' lives. Of course, I would also like them to look again at the local housing allowance that has been capped for a number of years, because I think that those things are causing major difficulty to rent payers in Scotland. Just as a follow-up to Alexander Stewart's line of questioning, the Chartered Institute for Housing research has shown that, since 2012, there has been a growing gap between the local housing allowance and the rent paid out. The Government is obviously concerned then in Scotland about the affordability of private rented housing, as you have alluded to, particularly in light of benefit reforms. What conversations might you have had with UK Government equivalents on that specific point? We have had a number of concerns for a while. I have stated those concerns in the chamber, and I think that I have previously heard from the committee. I am certainly not backward at coming forward in telling the UK Government what I think and the opportunities that I have had talking with Kingter Parts. The solution to all of those issues is currently in the hands of the DWP and the UK Government. If we look at LHA rates, which Ms Goreith has pointed out, they are calculated on behalf of the DWP according to its criteria. I think that that criteria has caused major damage to many families right across the country. It has been said that 2019-20 will be the last year of the freeze and upgrading. We will wait and see if that is the case or not. The UK Government has yet to announce what approach it will take after that. It is quite simple. The UK Government has to allow LHA rates to return to the true 30th per centile, which is the definition that was there before, to stop that freeze and to recognise that rents have risen. In some places in Scotland, it is impossible for folk to pay their rents with the current LHA allowance that is in place. If the committee wants more detail on the criteria that is set by the UK Government, I do not have that at my fingertips. Again, I am more than willing to supply the committee with any information that it may require in that regard. I would like to go back to talk about child poverty. I know that you mentioned that in one of your previous responses with regard to the Government's tackling poverty delivery plan. It notes that it will ensure that future affordable housing supply decisions support our objective to achieve a real and sustained impact on child poverty. You spoke earlier about the refresh of local housing strategy guidance, and it will ensure that local authorities take a robust evidence-based approach to the identification of specific housing needs. How will you monitor that local authorities target what they are doing in terms of tackling child poverty around that house building? I am glad that you have mentioned the tackling child poverty delivery plan. I alluded to in a previous answer. We are working on stakeholder engagement on the action to work with the social sector to agree the best ways to keep rents affordable. That will fully involve COSLA, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Glasgow and West of Scotland forum, in the development of that work. Obviously, those discussions in terms of coming up with the best way forward will also have discussions about how we monitor all of that as we go forward. The Government is very grateful to partners in terms of the level of co-operation that there has been on many of those difficult issues. We want to continue to ensure that we consult fully, not only in terms of implementation but, again, how we monitor that in the future. We will put the flesh and the bones of all of that, and I am quite sure that the committee will, in the future, be asking us how we are getting on with those discussions and how we are going to deliver on that scenario of trying to keep rents as low as possible and to decrease child poverty and other poverty streams by getting that right. The Government's aspirations about closing the attainment gap seem to be intrinsically linked to what we are doing in terms of child poverty. I wonder, perhaps, if the local housing strategy guidance might consider how people equity funding links to what is happening in the housing sector. I know that that is predicated on fee school meal entitlement. Is that a measure that you might consider looking at tying up to what we are doing on housing? It is a very interesting point that Ms Galreith makes. Many of the difficulties that we face in various aspects of life, including the attainment gap, are entirely driven by poverty. I will certainly consider what Ms Galreith has said here today and reflect on that, and we will get back to you on what we do in that regard. I think that Ms Galreith makes a very good point there. Can I just check something on affordability? Housing associations and local authorities have got a significant degree of flexibility and independence in how they review their rents and what their rent structuring policy is, and they consult obviously in relation to that. I previously thought that, by convention, they often look at RPI as an underlying rate of inflation. RPI plus one was a conventional thing that they used to do quite a lot when setting rent levels. The other day, I met constituents and they said that one of the concerns that they had was that the UK government benefits were often predicated on CPI, which runs about 1.2 per cent less than RPI. However, the housing association uses RPI as an indicator, so it has a widening inequality in terms of affordability in relation to rents. Given the fact that this Parliament has out-control over a small amount of benefits in the UK Parliament, there is a significant amount of benefits. You have previously mentioned universal credit and other aspects of the benefits system. I am just wondering if there is maybe more consideration that the Scottish Government could give in relation to what guidance there should be to local authorities in relation to how they set their rent levels and what guidance or what representations we can make to the UK Government in how they get their benefits, including in-work benefits levels. We are using RPI for people in social housing when their costs are going up, but we are using CPI when their benefits go up. Increasingly every year, rent gets harder to pay. It is difficult for me to sit here and talk about what individual housing associations may base their rent increases on. I know that in terms of the private housing tenancies act in 2016, when it came to our decisions around about rent pressure zones, we in that legislation talked about capping rent increases at a minimum of CPI plus 1 per cent. I know that a number of places have gone in recent times with CPI. Of course, again, convener, it is not up to Government to dictate to registered social landlords what they do in those regards. After all, we are in the process of putting through the housing amendment bill. Those are decisions for them to make. I have a table in front of me, convener, which I could read out in terms of relevant social rent benchmarks and assumptions that have been made over the piece. I do not read out from that table. I appreciate the additional detail that you were going to give up on conscious and other members who want to get in with questions. It is just the hope that there is a collegiate approach with local authorities and housing associations as they independently set their rent levels and what best practice guidance might look around that. However, on the other side of the coin, the UK Government and, to a lesser extent, this Government, when we set or the UK Government set its benefits levels about the divergence between one cost pressure and one income supplement diverging, is that something that we partnership with Jeane Freeman that we can look at? It is something that the UK Government needs to look at in some depth, as it does over all of its benefits, including all of the housing benefit scenarios that it is responsible for. Convener, if it is helpful, we routinely publish guidance at the start of each financial year that advises RSLs and councils of social rent benchmark assumptions. I can send you the in-depth details, including the tables that I have in front of me so that that gives you a better indication of what is going on out there. Thank you very much, convener. I just want to touch on rural housing for a moment, minister. In 2016-17, about 17 per cent of Scotland's population lived in rural and island areas, but only about half that proportion of affordable houses was built. What we have in rural Scotland is wages that are below average, we have rents that are above average, and clearly if there is no equalisation in terms of shared housing being built in rural Scotland, it puts more pressure on the towns because people have to migrate to get affordable housing and also age depopulation and makes it more difficult in the long term for the delivery of services in rural areas. I know that there is a rural housing fund, but what can we do to try and reverse that trend and ensure that rural and island Scotland gets a level of investment in affordable housing that it deserves at least in terms of its shared population? First of all, convener, I should say that the resource planning assumptions that are given to local authorities do not break down into rural or urban. I know that many local authorities have that rural and urban mix, but they are responsible for the local investment and for deciding where that housing should be built. However, I have been pretty robust in terms of saying to people that they need to look at all factors that exist in their particular area. There are opportunities that arise and councils should be looking at ever-changing scenarios that go on. Probably a good example, convener, would be Highland Council, where there were a lot of folks who were saying that the emphasis was largely around the Inverness area itself. I think that that has changed, and I think that that continues to change. We have seen opportunities in terms of economic growth in Fort William, and there has been a re-emphasis there. There has obviously been quite a lot of stories around the sky and Lochaber area, and the major boost in tourism that has been there, which has put pressure in affordable social housing in those places. I am glad to see that Highland Council has adapted, is looking much more at the Lochaber area in Fort William, and we are about to see some major investment from the Sky and Lochaber housing association in the sky. As I go about the country, as I am pruned today, I am challenging local authorities around about their plans and talking to folks to see exactly what is required. I hope that all local authorities will listen to the populace at large about what is required and will adjust their plans accordingly. After all, in certain rural areas, the additional housing may mean the school staying open, or some other community facility staying open, but those are matters for local authorities. In fairness, I would say that most of them are getting much better at this. To follow that up, one of the issues in rural and island areas is that it is much more expensive to build. For example, I know that, in one constituency in the Varene, it can be anything from 25 to 50 per cent more expensive to construct houses because materials and workers have to be brought over, and sometimes they have to be housed during the working week. That creates a disincentive for local authorities and registers social landlords because they can build more houses for the same money on the mainland. When we are talking about numbers, they obviously want to do that, but that makes it difficult for island communities to get the housing they need. What can we do to incentivise and deliver a level playing field in island and rural communities so that that disincentive for local authorities and registers social landlords is minimised? I am going to touch upon the subsidy scenario once again, and I keep saying that I am not going to change subsidy levels and I am not. It is one of those areas where local authorities' housing associations can have discussions with my officials about subsidy levels for remote rural and island communities. I recognise that it costs more to build in certain places. Often, you have to bring the skills on island because they are not there. I would hope that we could build up the skills on the islands. One of the things about the pipeline of work is that, hopefully, we will be able to do that in many places, but we recognise that it is more costly. Some of the projects that have been completed with subsidy in recent times have received fairly substantial levels of subsidy, but we were keen to see those projects go ahead. Probably one of the best examples of that is Alva Ferry on Mall, where a couple of houses there were immensely costly compared to building even in other parts of Mall, is my understanding. We recognise that that is the case. My officials on the ground take a common sense approach to all of that. It is getting local authorities to have those discussions to get what is right, whether that be in Arran, Cumbria or Mall, or even Alva, if that is a point. Thank you very much. I would like to come in later, if possible, in that area. Mr White, when you are at some supplementary areas in that area. Yes, just on the rural areas, I am aware that you are hopefully supplying some data to this committee last year, which was analysed by the rural housing service who claim, as a result of that analysis, that 72 per cent of new homes in the affordable housing supply programme that are classified as rural were built in urban areas. Now, I know that there is some disagreement about the numbers and I do not propose to enter into those disagreements at the moment. For statistical accuracy, could you commit to publishing this data rather than a simple urban rural split on the basis of the sixfold urban rural classification in the future, so that there is at least some understandable data? Convener, if I remember rightly, Mr Whiteman might have asked a similar written question of me previously. I think that there may be some difficulties in terms of some of that data gathering. I do not want to commit myself to doing something that I kind of necessarily do easily. What I will do is have a look at that situation and get back to the committee with what is possible and what is not. Okay, that is extremely helpful. I will leave it there on the rural. I would like to ask some questions in affordability, but maybe I will come back. Well, why don't you? Just to give a heads up for members, we have about 20 minutes left of this session, so if you get something specific that you want to ask, catch my eye so we can get it put in the last 20 minutes or so. Okay, thank you very much, convener. Yes, coming back to the question of affordability. You laid out the Government's definition of affordable housing as being one based on the planning system and based on tenure, but for growing numbers of particularly young people, shared ownership, social rents not available to them, even so-called affordable homes, 80 per cent of the market rent is not affordable. I and I think that the committee are aware of the difficulties in defining affordability based on incomes. I mean, I don't minimise the difficulties, but would you consider redefining what you mean by affordable housing in policy terms to move away from a very vague planning and tenure base to something that's more akin to people's real lived experience about what it costs to afford housing? Convener, the anorak that I am, I've looked at a huge amount of discussion, academic papers and what could be termed as general argument about how you would define affordability. I think that we could spend a very, very long time indeed trying to define something that is in some cases almost undefinable. I would rather get on with the business of delivering. I think that one of the key things in all of this is increasing the supply, particularly the supply of socially rented housing, will allow more folks to access that, thus becoming more affordable. I'm quite sure that the committee itself will have looked at various academic papers and will have probably partaken in some of the arguments around how you define affordability. I think that what we have at the moment, while it's not ideal, gives us a fairly good setting for all of this. I don't know how long it would take for us to reach agreement about a definition and whether that definition would necessarily last five minutes. The reality is quite simply that, in terms of affordability itself, what may be affordable to us as individuals today might not be affordable to us because of ever-changing circumstances tomorrow. I would rather concentrate on delivery rather than having a huge ramyw about definition. I'm not proposing a huge ramyw, but I acknowledge that it's difficult. My point was that the current definition talks about being affordable to people on modest incomes. It mentions modest incomes, but then it goes on to talk about a 10-year-based approach. All I'm suggesting is that, by using the term affordable housing, it is increasingly becoming disconnected with people's everyday experience of how affordable housing is. I'm not suggesting that we have a big ramyw about what is affordable. What I'm suggesting is that we move away at least to something that is more akin—still not perfect but more akin—to people's everyday understanding about what is affordable for people on modest incomes. I'm a pragmatic man, as you well know, convener, but I would rather spend time on delivery rather than concentrating on my efforts on that kind of scenario. If somebody came up with a definition that was different from that, I would have a look at it. In all honesty, I want to concentrate on delivery rather than having arguments around about definition, because I don't think that lots of folk don't agree with this. Lots of folk don't agree with many of the other definitions that have been put forward by academics and others. We have what we have, and I would rather concentrate on delivery. I think that you might not be the answer that you want to, Mr Whiteman, but I think that you have certainly had that. At several of the papers that we looked at, it was hotly debated about what the definition would look like. Thank you for raising it, Mr Whiteman. I don't know what papers you've seen, convener, but I would imagine that they're probably not that much different to some of the stuff that I've read previously. It is an issue, so it's important to raise it, Mr Simpson. Thanks. Just a couple of quick questions. Have any councils yet applied to set up rent pressure zones? There have not been any formal indications to the Government, but I do know that a number of local authorities are looking at that, but there has been no formal intentions made by any local authority unless that has happened in the past few days. Do you know which councils are looking at it? I think that it would be fair to say that, because of press reports, Edinburgh, Glasgow and beyond that, I know that others have been talking about it, but I don't know how far advanced the others would be in that regard. The other question that I wanted to ask is about the Warm Homes Bill, which was an SMP manifesto commitment. That now appears to have been dropped. I might be wrong on that. The fuel poverty target, I can't remember the right name of the bill, forgive me, convener, will be introduced before the summer alongside the fuel poverty strategy. Sorry, are we talking about something that's going to be called... Fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill, and that will set the new definition and a new statutory fuel poverty target. Convener, I wish that I had more of a say in those things, but obviously the name of a bill has got to be neutral and acceptable to the Presiding Officer, so that's the bill. Let's call it the fuel poverty bill. That is not the Warm Homes Bill, so the Warm Homes Bill has been dropped. No, what we have said right throughout is that we will do that in two stages. The first one is the fuel poverty bill. That will drive forward the provision of support to those who are most in need no matter where they live in Scotland. That, of course, will go alongside the fuel poverty strategy, which will be published at the same time. That will outline our aims to maximise the number of homes reaching EPC-ban status and to target support and enable actions. As the committee is well aware, we have already set out a number of standards for social housing and private sector landlords. That bill will also spell out what is required in terms of the owner-occupied sector, so that will be published before summer. I hear that. For clarity, convener, we are not going to have something called the Warm Homes Bill? No, you are having something called the Fuel Poverty Target Definition and Strategy Scotland Bill, which I would much rather have called the Warm Homes Bill. Okay, so why the change? Because the Warm Homes Bill itself would not have been a title that would have been accepted, is my understanding. Can I just check with her something that would be helpful if there was a suggestion that there would be two different pieces of legislation? If that is what Mr Simpson was thinking, it would be quite helpful. I am sure that the bill is presented to Parliament that it is made clear what aspects of what Mr Simpson was thinking in the Warm Homes Bill will have been incorporated in the Fuel Poverty legislation. I do not think that we are talking about anything different, but I will outline in writing all of the detail of what we are going to do in the next couple of weeks. That would be the concern of myself and, indeed, stakeholders that it becomes something different to what we expected. No, no, no. So it is just a change of name? I would much prefer it to have been called the Warm Homes Bill, but that is not where we are at. Why do you look sad at it, minister? Will you scrutinise the content, rather, than the name? Absolutly. The content is key, convener, to all of this. Do you want to follow up with some of that, Mr Simpson? That's fine. That's fine. Okay, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, convener. The rental income guarantee scheme was launched on 12 October last year to boost investment in building houses to rent. I am just wondering what kind of progress has been made so far in terms of the delivery of that going forward? Expanding the build to rent sector is part of the Greater More Homes Scotland approach, and is a key element in terms of the strategy that we have for the private rented sector. Last October, we launched a package that was pretty well received, enabling measures to stimulate growth in the sector and to attract investment in the build to rent market here. As part of that package, we have offered changes in planning advice and taxation. Obviously, we have explained the tenancy reform situation that we have gone through here and the rental income guarantee scheme, which Mr Gibson has mentioned in his question. Scottish Features Trust has had quite a number of meetings and kept close contact with developers and investors and lenders. I am told that there has been pretty positive feedback around that, but as things progress, I am more than happy to keep the committee informed of developments. Obviously, it is just over seven months since that was launched, but I am just wondering if there is any indication of the numbers of additional privately rented homes that are going to be built in this financial year or indeed next as a direct result of this policy? That is difficult. Obviously, in Aberdeen, the Dandara scheme there is complete. I know that there are a series of sites in Glasgow that are seeking planning permission, and if you excuse me, I will not talk to any great degree about the planning permission itself. I think that there is a platform at Finiston. Pitch Street is another one in Glasgow. In Edinburgh, we have moed at Apache at Fenton Bridge and Dundee at Whiteburn, but I do not have any more detail than that for Mr Gibson. I am sweared to talk about sites where planning permission may be being sought at this moment. It looks as if some progress is being made. On 23 December, the cabinet secretary told the committee that he is considering using funding from the financial transactions to support a building Scotland fund, also a prominent housing and infrastructure process. I am just wondering where we are with that. There have been discussions between members of my housing innovation team and others who are helping to establish the Scottish National Investment Bank. Obviously, the £150 million building Scotland fund is seen as a precursor to the Scottish National Investment Bank. The money itself will be available to non-public sector organisations, as the committee is probably aware, and will provide either debt or equity capital. We are at the early stages of that. There are a lot of discussions going on between the housing innovation team and others within Government to get that absolutely right. Can I just pick on something, minister? One of the changes to the budget process in this Parliament is that we now seek to use every opportunity to have a rolling programme of questions in relation to the budget. One of the issues that we raised in the last financial year's budget was in relation to money for adaptations. Obviously, the committee wanted to make sure that there was a 10-year neutral approach to adaptations, but we had noted that the budget in the social rented sector outwith local authorities for housing associations effectively was £10 million. It had been £10 million for some time, so it was not a cup, but it was kind of stuck there. We tried to get some information and the Government has been helpful in relation to this and in relation to the spending in the health and social care partnerships within the integrity joint boards, but it was still a bit patchy what we were getting, so we found out that, for 1617, it was just over £38 million for 23 of the integrity joint boards, so we did not have the full picture. Obviously, we are keen to make sure that we have a 10-year neutral approach to adaptations that those in need, particularly in light of the disabled matters that we were talking about in relation to housing provision. It would appear to myself that we have to discuss it as a committee that £10 million looks like something that might have to shift at some point in the future, but we cannot gauge how much that should shift on a 10-year neutral basis if we do not really know how much integrity joint boards are spending in other house tenure types, so any comments that you have on that would be quite helpful. I have probably got a fair amount of comments in that, convener. I should say at the very outset, as I explained before, that the £10 million is additional Government money that goes to RSLs for adaptations and primary responsibility for housing adaptations rests, as you rightly point out, with integrated joint boards' health and social care partnerships. They themselves should be 10-year blind in terms of what they are doing, and I agree with you that, in terms of the information that I have provided the committee, it is patchy and I am not particularly happy with that situation. We will be going back to health and social care partnerships to get them to have a hard look at what they are doing in this area. I was at a tenants event in Aberdeen on Saturday, where there were tenants and residents from a number of local authorities to have their regional AGM. It would be fair to say that, although some folks were fairly complimentary about what was going on in their particular area, others were very unhappy indeed. We have had a number of work streams going on in the area of adaptation. We have had findings from pilots that we have had. I am going to look very closely at what may need to be done in terms of getting either the exporting of the best practice all over the place or talking to colleagues to see if there is a need for additional guidance around about that. My final point, convener, is a very simple one. There is the human cost of not getting this absolutely right, but there is also a cost to the public purse of not doing this properly. At the end of the day, if folk are not getting the right adaptations in their homes to lead the independent lives that they all want to do, that is a burden on the health service itself, with additional cost of folk having to go into hospital or into a care setting. It is absolutely the right thing to do for people, but it is also the right thing to do for the public finances, for the health and social care partnerships, to bend spend to ensure that they get it right with adaptations. I will ask one final question, which might be helpful given time, when Mr White might have noted that you want to ask a final question. The £38 million that I mentioned is an input in relation to money for adaptations, as is the £10 million. We should really be measuring outcomes, so any information that the Government holds or is seeking to get in how that £10 million or that £38 million is spent in the most effective and efficient way would be very welcome. The connection that you pointed out, minister, is that, of course, there will be more than £10 million spent in the social rented sector because health and social care boards are not precluded from investing in that sector. It would be better to be able to understand the overall spend in that sector. In my area, for example, where there really are not any council houses, which is quite good to get a bit of clarity around that, any information that you have, perhaps you could write to the committee in relation to? I do not think that I would have much more information than I have given you already in terms of budgeting. What may be useful for the committee, I do not know how easy it will be for us to get our hands in it, but we will. It is to give you evidence of what difference an adaptation may make to individuals' lives. It is very difficult to gauge what the saving would be because, obviously, that is not entirely clear at points, but we will provide you with what we can in that regard. I do not think that I can provide you with anything more at this moment in terms of budgets, but one of the things that the committee can be assured of is that this is an area that I have a great interest in. Although not all of that falls within my portfolio, I will be doing all that I can with colleagues to make sure that we can see the best practice that is going on in certain places happening elsewhere, because it is absolutely the right thing to do for people. We will do what we can to get on top of it. I think that that would be really helpful. That means that when we get to the sharp end of budgets because today we are not just looking at raw numbers, we are looking at the wider picture, which would be very helpful, so thank you very much. Mr Wightman, a brief final question? Just a couple of very brief questions, minister. I have been meeting recently with the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability, who were concerned about specific guidance and planning for people with learning disabilities in relation to housing. I wonder if you could just confirm that you are aware of the report from October 2017 and are engaging in addressing some of those concerns? I am aware of the report. If I remember rightly, Maureen Watt was meeting with SCLD in recent times and fed back a number of things from that. I was supposed to attend that meeting but other business came up. That is an area that we will look at. On building standards, convener, as I have said to the committee before, at this moment in time, the resource of the building standards division is focusing on the aftermath of the tragedy at Grenfell and Coal. We will reach soon the reports back from the independent panels that have been looking at fire safety and building standards for us. After that work is done, we will get back on track to looking at a number of those things that have come to our attention. That is helpful. Finally, on the private sector, outcome number 30 in the joint housing delivery plan talks about more people choosing to rent in the private sector. Given that a lot of people in the private sector at the moment do not want to be there, they would rather be in the social rented sector after 35,000 more homes, they still will not be able to get a social rented home. More people choosing to rent is an absolute aspiration. Do you want arithmetically more or is it a relative more people, given that the percentage has increased as trebled since 1999? Convener, I want to give people choice. I want to give people the choice to live in a council or housing association home, if that is what they want to do. I want to give people the choice of whether they want to live in a private rented stock. I want to give people the choice of being able to own their own home. People make different choices at different points in their lives and it should be easy for folk to move between whatever it is that they want to do. I know that there are folks who are in the private rented sector who do not want to be there. That is one of the reasons why we are doing all that we can to increase the delivery of social housing across the country. I also know that there are a lot of folk who want to live in the private rented sector. It is all about giving people choice. Thank you very much. That brings us towards the end of this particular evidence session. In a moment, we are going to suspend briefly. Minister, you do not make your escape, you are sticking with us for the subsequent agenda item. I thank you for your evidence and for your two officials for coming along here this morning, but we will suspend briefly before we move to agenda item 3. We move to agenda item 3, which is code of conduct for councillors. The revised code of conduct, SG forward slash 2018 forward slash 65, is to be approved by resolution of the Parliament, so the committee's role is to consider it in the same way as it would any affirmative instrument. The committee will therefore take evidence on the revised code from the minister at this item, and then at the follow item, the committee will formally consider a motion to approve the revised code. Therefore, I welcome Kevin Stewart once more, Minister for Local Government and Housing, and now joined with Mr Stewart as Brian Peddy, relationship manager, local government policy and relationship unit Scottish Government. Thank you both for joining us still this morning. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about the proposed changes to the councillor's code of conduct. Mr Peddy's input might be necessary at various points. He is the expert without a doubt on the code of conduct. I have laid the revised version of the code before the Parliament primarily to address two issues. The first issue concerns the code's rules and declarations of conflicts of interest. We received representation that those rules were inhibiting councillor's ability to represent councils on the boards of regional transport partnerships, and that that could adversely affect the effective working of those boards. I should probably declare at this point that I was previously a chair of a regional transport partnership, Nez Trans. RTPs exist to strengthen the planning and delivery of regional transport developments, and it is important that councillors should be able to take part in their work while still properly representing those that elected them. The proposed amendments, which were the subject of public consultation, are aimed at removing the unintended barriers to achieving that aim while maintaining the general rules around conflicts of interest. The second issue is to make it as clear as possible to councillors, those who work with them and members of the public, that bullying and harassment in any form will not be tolerated. Despite the great progress that has been made in promoting and achieving equality, it is clear that more needs to be done. I, my colleagues, are determined that any form of prejudice by anyone and wherever it exists should be stamped out. People are entitled to expect that elected councillors will not engage in unacceptable behaviour, and this proposed amendment to the code will make that crystal clear. That follows similar changes that were made by the First Minister earlier this year to the Scottish Ministerial Code. I am pleased to say that COSLA is fully supportive of the proposed change. It is also proposed to make some minor clarifying changes to the code, many of which reflect suggestions put to us by the Standards Commission. Looking ahead, we await the outcome of the Standards Committee's inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct at the Parliament, which includes considering the MSP's code of conduct. Once that inquiry has reported, we will consider whether any of its recommendations should be reflected in further changes to the councillor's code, and I will advise the committee once that consideration has taken place. I hope that that is helpful. Mr Peddy and I are prepared to answer any questions that you may have. We had the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life, Bill Thompson, before us a couple of times and a couple of fairly robust sessions. Members myself, in particular, have expressed concerns about this code and the ways used, often in a vexatious manner, and often in a politically motivated manner against councillors. I just wonder whether you think that we should actually, rather than the piecemeal reforms that you have produced today, be looking at a routine branch look at this. We, as MSPs, have not had a chance to have an input into this process. This is it. We will later today have a yes or no vote. We have not had a chance to amend any part of it. My concern that I will come on to it is what will be left with could actually be even worse. Particularly if you look at the section on bullying and harassment in the new proposed code, all it says is that bullying or harassment is completely unacceptable and will be considered to be a breach of the code. On the face of it, you might say, well, fair enough. However, how do you define bullying? How do you define harassment? I think that this could open the floodgates. Councilor is complaining against other councillors in particular. He or she has harassed me. He or she has bullied me. It is just not specific enough. What is your view on that? I wrote to the convener earlier on in the year and agree that there may be merit in a full review of the code. It was last fully reviewed in 2010 and it must continue to evolve to change with times. However, we do not currently have firm plans for a review. We will consider the way forward once the standards committee has produced its report. In terms of some of the general points that Mr Simpson has made, having been a councillor myself for a number of years, I am aware that sometimes the code has been used for political purposes. We live in a political environment. Sometimes looking at it has been a case in some points where complaints have been vexatious. However, I think that that code, those standards are required in terms of the changes that we have made in terms of bullying and harassment. That is to be much more explicit than what was in the code previously. The problem is that the minister is not explicit at all. It is extremely vague. It only uses the word bullying or harassment. Those two words can mean many different things to many people. Do you not agree with my initial point that it could open the floodgates? No, I do not agree with your initial point at all. I remember back to the very start of the publication of the councillor's code of conduct, when people at that time were saying that it would open up the floodgates of complaints from members of the public and from other elected members about elected members. That did not happen. However, what it did do, and this is my own personal opinion, was to change certain behaviours in council chambers. That was a good thing. I think that any code in a political environment will be folks who will chance their arm at a point, which I do not think is a particularly good thing to do in terms of growing up in mature politics. I think that we need a code. I think that it is absolutely right, in the current circumstances that we are in, to put emphasis on bullying and harassment. There is an opportunity for a wider discussion at the next item on the agenda, but yet on this theme. You can continue further if you want, Mr Simpson, but you will have another opportunity in the next agenda item. It is up to you, convener. I am going to ask questions about another part of the code. Okay. Mr Gibson, do you want to come in relation to that? I agree with the minister that we have to move with the times and it is important that issues such as bullying and harassment are covered, but he cannot just use a couple of words like that. What is bullying and harassment to someone else, particularly in bullying? Could it just be a robust exchange of views? Somebody says, oh, you're bullying me. You really have to put more detail. There has to be a lot of meat on the bones of people who are going to know what the parameters of this are, quite frankly, because it is not just about protecting some councillor from vexations complaints, it is about showing people who genuinely are bullied and harassment are taken seriously. I think that there is a balance to be struck here. The form of words that is going to be used in the code, I think, is, frankly, just does not meet the required standard. I will do, convener. It is taken from the changes to the ministerial code. As I said, that was agreed by COSLA. I understand that it was agreed by COSLA leaders. I'm getting the nod of the head from Brian. As I said, we will go back and look again after the standards committee has reported, but many people wanted a change to reflect what is currently going on in society. Beyond that, as I said, the First Minister agreed to change the ministerial code, and that is a reflection of that change. Minister, I think that nobody is disagreeing with you that we have to be alive to the fact that, in a political environment, individuals have their own views and opinions, and sometimes that can become heated. However, when you are looking at the code, we acknowledge the fact that the code was brought in to protect councillors and to protect their integrity and officials around them to ensure that there was good balance taking place, because in the past there wasn't. Many of the rules and conditions that are in the code are there to make sure that that is a protection. However, as we have heard today, we could find ourselves in a very difficult situation, and councillors could find themselves in some very difficult situations in the interpretation of the code going forward. Can I ask who was consulted? You have indicated that COSLA leaders made a comment. Did they give evidence? Did they take sidings from any of their councils? Is there any evidence to suggest that, when we were looking at bullying and harassment, what areas were looked at with reference to bullying and harassment, or was it just an overview? You have touched on the ministerial code. I would suggest that the ministerial code may well cover what a minister looks at, but that might not be the same for a councillor. I have had those rules for a number of years prior to coming into this place. It is a very different environment in a council chamber. It is a very different environment in a council itself. As to what a council's role and responsibilities are involved in the community, who he or she gets involved with, the complexities that they may face are very different to the rules that we have here. As I said, I would like to find out more about the consultation, who was involved, what was discussed and what areas of expertise were taken on board when making the decision. I will take in Brian Peddy in a moment, convener, but in terms of bullying and harassment, I do not think that it matters if you are a minister, an MSP or a councillor or whatever public servant you are. There should not be any bullying or harassment going on. The wording has been chosen to match that in the ministerial code. It has been agreed not only with COSLA, but with the Standards Commission and the Commission for Ethical Standards. My understanding is that Brian Peddy will give you the detail that it was passed by COSLA leaders. I do not know if there was any dissent to that. I do not think that there was, but I will pass you over to Mr Peddy in that regard. Yes, just to add that the proposed change was endorsed by COSLA leaders at a meeting at the end of March. I cannot speak to what consultation may have taken place between COSLA and their member councils before that, but we had quite lengthy discussions with COSLA officials before that meeting to lay out the proposed wording of the change to the code and discuss that with them. We also discussed it at official level with the Standards Commission and the Commission for Ethical Standards. Originally, the proposed wording on this was going to be a bit longer, but the commission and the commissioner felt that it was actually potentially unhelpful to do so, partly because of the risk of accidentally excluding behaviours that ought to be included and that the better approach was to have a very clear and short amendment, and that is the approach that we adopted. I mean, all 32 leaders of councils had a say, or should have a say, at their leaders meeting, and they would have seen the proposals that were put before that leaders meeting. I want to leave a couple of questions that I have until the end of any other questions from members. Jenny Gorra. The substantive changes that we have mentioned make this addition in section 2 to make it clear that bullying and harassment is completely unacceptable. I would really like to look at it from a gender perspective, because we have heard recent reports with regard to bullying and harassment at local level. In Fife, a Conservative councillor, Linda Holt, has spoken out previously about misogynistic bullying leading to women being shamed into silence. The gender representation on our councils is not great, and we know nationally that we have only got six council leaders that are female. There is arguably still a macho culture that exists at council level, and Alexander Stewart is absolutely right. There is a different culture within our councils. I have witnessed five council meetings in the past, and I have got to say that I was pretty shocked by some of the culture that happened in terms of the meetings with regard to the behaviour of elective members. I would like to ask the minister to recognise the difference in terms of cultures, and do you think that the code needs to be further formalised, specifically with regard to gender? I am also thinking with regard to what has happened more recently in terms of sexual harassment? The reason why the words bullying and harassment were used and no specifics is that, frankly, you could go into a huge amount of specifics, whether that be gender, homophobic, race and the list goes on. I think that it is much easier to say that we have zero tolerance for any sort of bullying and harassment. It may well be that we have to make amendments to this after the standards committee report, but, as Ms Gilruth has mentioned, there have been people like Councillor Holton and others across the country. A number of people who are new to local government have been quite shocked at the behaviours that there have been. Beyond that, the change in demographic in local authorities at the last election allowed other folks who felt uncomfortable previously, but were unwilling to say anything about it, to come forward. I think that that is a good thing. What I want to see is a situation whereby we are very clear that we will not tolerate bullying and harassment in any shape or form. I would also like to ask a question with regard to social media, because there is not an explicit reference in the code to online behaviours, but there is a reference in the general conduct section. I encourage councillors to think about whether their comments are likely to bring their office into disrepute, whether they are treating others with respect. Tone can be harder to convey online, so consider whether humour, irony and sarcasm can be perceived as such. There is even a reference to retweets or to likes, which can perhaps be done in a passive-aggressive manner or in a surptitious way. There is a possibility, though, that councillor will ignore the guidance willfully, as it is obviously not stipulated within the code, as far as I understand it. Do you think that that needs to be revisited? I will bring Brian in first, please, convener. I will let Brian deal with that aspect first. I am a bit sorry that the minister described me as the expert. That sometimes can be an invitation to disaster, but I will take my chances. One of the proposed amendments to the code does not refer to social media, and that was at the suggestion of the Standards Commission. If you look at paragraph 3.1 of the amended code, it explicitly requires councillors to respect the rules of good conduct, including when using social media. That is an area where the commission felt that, while that was implicitly included, it would be sensible and appropriate to include a specific reference to it, and that is why it has been added. Again, that might be something that could be come back to in a wider review of the code as to whether that doctor will be expanded upon, but, at least for now, we will now have an explicit reference to social media in the amended code, if it is approved. I hope that that is helpful. Mr Whiteman, did you want to come in? Yeah, thank you, convener. In section 5 of the code on declaration of interests, councillors are required to declare any financial or non-financial interest of a spouse, a civil partner, cohabity, a close relative, a close friend, a close associate, an employer, a partner, and a firm. None of those requirements apply to MSPs. We are not approving an MSP code here, but I wonder in general why it is felt that that degree of financial interest of councillors and people that they know continues to be required in the code, specifically when, with the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament act, we do not have to say anything about our spouses, cohabities, partners, close relatives, etc. I am not responsible, convener, for MSPs and the declarations that they have to make. I have to say that I am quite used to all of this. I am a local authority member, and personally I would have no problem in declaring that all of this is an MSP. However, I am here to talk today about the councillor's code of conduct. That is why I am asking what is the continuing justification of this degree of declaration to be made by councillors? Obviously, that code has been in place for a long while, put together after a huge amount of consultation, including consultation with the public. That is what we have. That is the councillor's code of conduct. If members want to talk about any other codes of conduct, they need to do that with the other relevant ministers in that regard. I think that in terms of the general public itself, there is an expectation that folk should be as transparent as they possibly can be, and I think that that is what this does. Any further questions, Mr Whitewood? I have all looked, Mr Gibson, back in the second one. I would ask a couple of questions first, or I thought you were going back in. I will take Mr Simpson in a second. In relation to bullying and harassment, under the code as it stands before it gets changed, if an accusation of bullying and harassment was made against a councillor, how would it be dealt with in the current code? There is a general line. What was the previous line? We will get you the previous line first. The general provision in the code as it stands is a requirement to retreat other persons with respect. It is fair to say that it has been used in the past as the basis for proceedings under the code against councillors for behaviour that could be described as bullying or harassment. It is a very wide-ranging but very general statement that is already in the code. I think that that becomes significant. There is obviously a thirst amongst committee members here for the code to be looked at more generally. I would be loathed not to pass something today that did not be much clearer about bullying and harassment quite frankly, but I think that there might need to be some reassurance about where we move forward after today. More clarity in relation to what your intentions might be once the Standards Committee concludes its evidence. Irrespective of what is in that, would you return to the committee and look to see what the opportunities could be collegiately with the committee in looking again more generally at the code? As I said, convener, we will look and see what the Standards Committee has to say about the entire scenario. I am not averse to coming back here and discussing further the code of conduct. It may well be that the Standards Committee report itself will quite clearly show that there is a need for a review. It may not. As I said in my opening remarks, that has not really been looked at in any great depth in terms of change since 2010. It is probably about time that we actually took an overview to see if a review is required. That is without prejudice to what the Standards Committee does or does not report. That is helpful. I want to ask specifically about section 7, but I want to reflect on what we have heard already. The committee has only really just started looking at this. All members have raised a number of very interesting points. You have accepted that you may need to reflect further. Why do not we just park this for now? Let the committee do its job, and we can make suggestions. I am quite happy for the committee to do its job, but I also have a job to do. I would be failing in my duty to disregard the situations that I have heard about in recent times. From my perspective, many of them are truly and utterly shocking. I think that we have to do our level best to eradicate bullying and harassment in whatever shape or form, not only in our local authorities but elsewhere. The First Minister showed leadership in that by changing the ministerial code very quickly indeed. With the agreement of COSLA and the president of COSLA, Alison Evison and leaders, we want to do likewise. We should be doing so now and not waiting for anything else, but to show that we have a clear commitment that those behaviours are unacceptable. I am looking at members who wish to make the next agenda item, which is to debate the motion before us anyway. If there are no other specific questions, I would intend to move on to the next agenda item. Do not see anyone indicating a specific question. That being the case, the committee moved to agenda item 4, which is still on code of conduct for councillors. For that item, the committee will formally consider motion S5M-12191, calling for the committee to recommend approval of the revised and updated code of conduct for councillors for the ethical standards in public life etc. Scotland Act 2000. Only a minister remembers me speak during this debate. I therefore invite the minister to speak to and move motion S5M-12191. I think that I have said all I need to say on the subject, convener, and I move the motion on my name. Thank you. I invite members if they wish to make a contribution within the debate. Mr Simpson. Thanks, convener. Unfortunately today we are not only looking at the revises to the code, we are looking at the entire code. This was what we will be voting on indeed when we had Bill Thompson before us at this committee. I asked him if that is what we should be doing at this point, looking at the whole code. He said, yes, in an ideal world that is what we should be doing. In fact, that is what we are doing. We need to take not just the proposals for change but what is there already. I was going to go on to ask, but I cannot ask, so I just need to make points on section 7, which is probably my biggest bugbear about the code. Is it limits the ability of councillors to express a view on planning matters? In fact, one part of the code, section 7.3, actually says, you must not prejudge. Not just you must not say what you think, you must not prejudge. That strikes me as you must not even have thoughts about planning applications, not that you cannot say what you think about them in advance. It limits free speech. I always felt this when I was a councillor for 10 years. I thought that it was absurd. Once you are elected as a councillor, you are elected to represent people. You are elected to take opinions on things. Why should you not be able to express an opinion in advance of a committee meeting? Accepting that, when you have heard further evidence, you may welcome to a different view, but you certainly should be able to say what you think. The code prevents councillors, and they often hide behind that. They do not get involved in planning matters because of that. You are not entitled to express an opinion once a planning application is live, although, bizarrely, you are entitled to express an opinion before it goes live. You can say what you think before it goes live, but once it is live, you are effectively stymied. I think that that is absurd. For that reason, and indeed some of the woolly language that we have heard earlier, I would be moving against it. The other contribution is at this point, Mr Gibson. I can say on the first and foremost that the committee has been effectively bounced into this. I think that there should have been much more consultation with the committee in deliberations and discussions and taking evidence on this. I was actually involved in the first ever code, if you like, when we were back in the 1990s on the Glasgow City Council, when we brought in a code there, the first in Scotland. I remember weeks and weeks of evidence taking, deliberations and so on to do that code. Of course, things have been built on since then, but it seems to be growing arms and legs. The situation in planning—I was a councillor of course in the days when we did not have this nonsensical restriction—the public point blank does not understand it, does not comprehend why the people they have elected cannot actually have a say in planning decisions that they are lobbying them on. There is an element of frustration in there. Time to the issue that we talked about with regard to bullying. I think that there has to be much more detail on that, which other members have commented on in terms of online sarcasm. Is someone speaking quietly and menacingly bullying but someone shouting not bullying or vice versa, for example? How do we decide on those matters? I think that there has to be much more discussion. Because the leaders discussed it, I imagine that I do not have all 32 in attendance what the vote was or whether they consulted their own members, but certainly in terms of the code to go forward, we should look at this much more comprehensively. If we do that, we will have something that is much more workable in which the public and elected members themselves understand and are much more willing and able to work with. The duty of ministers is to bring forward this code and get Parliament's approval for it. From the questions that were asked earlier and from some of the contributions of my colleagues, it is clear that there still remain questions as to the appropriateness of some of the elements in the code. I am particularly uncomfortable as an MSP voting on a code that requires councillors to divulge financial and non-financial interests relating to family members, which increasingly intrudes on their privacy. I understand why that is all there. I am just saying the contrast between the duties that are placed on an MSP, and those on a councillor are very profound, and I would like to explore whether that is an on-going—whether that is appropriate going forward. I have some sympathy with Graham Simpson's comments on section 7, some substantial sympathy. It seems to me that a lot of this code has evolved since the first one was issued on the basis of very specific concerns relating to possibly very specific instances. It is quite understandable that a code should respond to in general terms matters that arise, for example the emergence of social media. I am a little bit concerned that some of those restrictions have not been subject to full consideration as to their on-going applicability. That is only a code, but it is a code that can ultimately result in councillors undergoing severe sanctions. I very much welcome the incorporation of the bullying and harassment element of the code. That is one of the key changes, one of three substantive changes to the code. My own view is that, given the public concern around that, given some of the behaviours that the minister himself has alluded to, it would be wrong at this stage to vote against a code that is incorporating that new provision. I think that I would send a very wrong signal to the public at large who expect the highest standards of behaviour from all elected members. I will vote in favour of the code, but, or in favour of recommending to Parliament, I approve the code, but I think that there are some substantive concerns. Graham Simpson has raised one, I have raised another with regard to disclosure of financial and non-financial interests, that it is time to have a written branch review of whether those are still appropriate and whether they are in what terms they should be expressed in a code. Any other contributions? As someone who served for 18 years as a councillor, and we had a standard in my own council before the code was introduced, I know the fact that a code was required. I still believe that a code is required, and adding things like bullying and harassment into the code is right. There is no question about that, but it has to be more explicit. In the past, we used respect. If anyone did not show respect in bullying and harassment, that was how they were managed. People who did bullying and harassment were dealt with in the code in the past. That was the case. The code has been no question that individuals use the code to hide behind the code, so they do not have to give information to constituents, organisations or individuals. I certainly was not the one who did that, but I was a witness of seeing that happen on numerous occasions by individuals who felt that the code was an advantage to them, not to get embroiled in a situation. That is their own choice. I have some sympathy of what is happening here today. I have some acknowledgement of what the Government is trying to do, but I still have some concerns about where we are because we are not seeing the full picture. We are not being given every opportunity to have a discussion. We are only seeing it today. As I say, we are having that discussion today. The committee has not had an opportunity to broaden that horizon, to broaden that process. I have some real difficulty, convener, in seeing where we go. I want the code to be as robust as it should be to protect individuals and to ensure that people can have trust and confidence in the code. However, as I say, if it is not explicit, things can be left in a worse situation than we have. As I say, those are the concerns that I have with them. Any other contributions? I am trying to wait a minute for a second, but Jenny, I welcome to after myself. I will go back to my question, the minister, which was with regard to gender. I am the only female MSP here today. I will be voting for it, because I think that it is really important that the behaviour that Alexander Stewart has just talked about that has gone, I think, unchallenged in the past is not acceptable and we will be sending a clear message by passing it today. Just looking around the table today, there are 14 men here and two women. I do not think that that is okay in here and it should not be okay out there either. Is there an opportunity to say my views in relation to this? The reason I asked a specific question about what is in the previous code in relation to treating others with respect is clearly a vehicle by which someone who believes that they are subject to bullying harassment can use, and I am sure that it has been used effectively in the past. However, the fact that we do not actually say anywhere within the code that bullying and harassment is wrong and people should come forward is a flaw in the code and it should be changed, and I will be supporting that change here today. I think that the message that we have been sent out by not supporting this today would be an appalling one, is my view. However, there is a general thirst for the code to be looked at in the round. I do not think that these are competing interests. In relation to financial declarations, that is a continuing issue that some members of the committee will have. That is not a change that has been made today. There is a variety of other things that members have said, which is not a change that we are looking at today. The most fundamental aspect of the changes that we are looking at today, whatever we cut it, is whether or not we send out a clear message that bullying and harassment is wrong and that we wish people to come forward. I absolutely get the points that what do we mean by bullying and harassment. I suspect that if you feel that you know what it is and once you get down to too much clarity and definition, you start to exclude some people who feel that they have been bullied and harassed. I think that there are huge challenges there because context and subjectivity are not always there when people feel that they have been bullied and harassed. However, not to have it included in a code of conduct is an omission. I would seek in the minister's summing up a reassurance that we will look at this again after the standards committee reports. I should point out that I am not using its leverage, but I will support it today because it includes a clear assertion that bullying and harassment is not acceptable and will be acted upon. However, that does not negate all the significant issues more generally with the code that other members have raised. We will still be seeking that assurance that we will be here again, we will look at this again and we will work out collegiately not just how six or seven MSPs at this committee look at a counsellor's code of conduct or how 32 counsellors might look at a counsellor's code of conduct, but more collegiately with individual counsellors on the ground who have to do that job—women as well as men—and have that co-production of whatever a revised code should mean. I hope that they will be back there looking at that, but I cannot possibly vote against something that says that bullying and harassment is wrong in local authorities across the country where it happens. We should be encouraging people to step forward and make complaints. That is my bit in relation to this anyway, minister. Are there any other contributions from committee members, Mr Simpson? Just for clarity, because you and Jenny Gilruth have spoken passionately about the bullying and harassment section. My concern is not that we should not say something about bullying and harassment, but that we just need to be clearer what it is. My fear is that, if that goes through—and today, we are not putting it through, we are just sending it on to Parliament—I do think that it could open the floodgates. Genuine cases of bullying and harassment that need to be dealt with could get lost. I agree with Mr Simpson that it is an important contribution to say that, if we approve it today, it goes to the full chamber for a final decision. That is absolutely right. That is why it is an affirmative instrument. That is another reason that we should be supporting it today. I also would not doubt the integrity of other individuals that take a different review from myself in relation to tackling bullying and harassment. I do not think that it is a binary choice between reviewing the code more generally and looking at that as part of that review and passing it just now, which is why I will certainly be looking to support it just now. With the permission of members, I will give the minister the opportunity to sum up at this point unless there are any other contributions. Thank you, convener. First of all, the reason why the revised code is in front of you with those two things is because, first of all, I feel that we must tackle the bullying and harassment issue, and we would be failing if we did not do so. However, the other part of the revision is roundabout that request from regional transport partnerships. The reason why that is the only other revision is because that is the only other thing that we have been asked to look at in a very, very long time. I do not want to put on record that we have had nothing about any of that in recent times, but there have been no requests for any other revision in recent times, whether that be on section 5 or on section 7 or any other part of that code. As I said previously, I am willing to look at that again after the Standards Commission has reported. I am glad that the committee is taking a general interest in the round on that. As a Government, we look carefully at requests that are made. We have had no other requests about revising that code in recent times, apart from the RTP's one, which I agreed that we would look at favourably. However, we will look at the code in the round. If I could finish, convener, I remember when the code of conduct came into being. Folk said at that point in time that it would open up the floodgates for lots and lots of complaints. There were complaints, but I think that they largely would have gone and dealt with before. There were some vexatious ones. There always is. We work in a political environment and that is the way of the world. I do not think that that will open up the floodgates but what the discussion in recent times has done is to allow people the opportunity to tell folk that they are unhappy about certain aspects of the environments that they are working in. We should make that as easy for them as possible. That is why I feel that it was right to move with that change on bullying and harassment as soon as we could. We have the agreement of COSLA on that. If they were unhappy with it, I am quite sure that they would have let the committee know. I urge the committee to back that motion today. Thank you, minister. I think that we have a pretty vigorous and open debate in relation to that, but we now move to the vote. The question is that motion S5M-12191, in the name of the minister for local government and housing, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed and we then move to a division. Can I ask those who agree with the motion to raise their hands, please? Thank you. Can I ask those who disagree with the motion to raise their hands, please? Can I ask if there are any abstentions? The vote is three, four, two against and one abstention, so that means that the motion before is agreed to. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument shortly to the Parliament. I thank you, minister, and your official for taking the table with us today. We now move to agenda item 5, which is Public Petition PE1655. The committee will consider petition PE1655, in the name of Christine Metcalf on behalf of the average in Cochrenan community council, calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the process for designation of national scenic areas, and to consider increasing the number of NSAs in Scotland to protect the natural landscape and support the tourism sector. Prior to referring the petition to our committee on 26 March, the Public Petitions Committee received oral and further written evidence from the petitioner, as well as written evidence from the Scottish Government and Scottish national heritage. It recognised that, given that our committee had consulted its evidence and had concluded its evidence-taking on the planning bill, there would be limited scope for that issue to be considered during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. In fact, there will not be any opportunity to be discussed during stage 1 scrutiny, I suppose, outwith the actual stage 1 debate itself, perhaps. That being the case, I would point out that there is nothing to preclude individual MSPs from raising amendments if they so chose to at stage 2 of the planning bill's progress through Parliament, should it reach stage 2. I invite comments from members and agree what action, if any, they wish to take in relation to the petition and I will outline two potential options that we could consider—not precluding others, of course. The first option is undertaking further work on the petition and, if so, consider what further work would be undertaken, or, alternatively, noting and closing the petition, recognising that its stage 1 report has already been agreed to and that any MSP could bring forward amendments at stage 2. If we read what the petition says, I do not think that it is really what it is intending on the petition that seems to me in the detail of the petition, that the whole point of the petition is to restrict and reduce the number of applications going forward with regard to wind turbines. If that was indeed the original intent, that should have been much more explicit in terms of what the petitioner put in the petition itself. Therefore, I take the view that we should not enclose the petition. The section 50 of the 2006 act lays out the provisions for designation of national scenic areas. It is the power for Scottish ministers to designate one and subsection 4 lays out the matters that Scottish ministers are to take account of in making such designations. The petition urges the Scottish Government to review the process of designation, but the petition does not suggest what the scope of that review might be or, in particular, what elements that currently have to be taken account of in designating MSAs should be looked at again. As Mr Gibson says, it appears that some of the motivation for this is to provide a stronger statutory framework in which to inhibit the development of wind turbines. The letter from the Scottish Government makes it very clear that it is not minded to review the process. It does not see the need to review the process. I do not have sufficient evidence to suggest that the process, as laid out, needs to be revised. Although, as the convener makes quite clear, those are planning provisions, stage 2 of the planning bill is coming up. It is open to any MSP to table amendments if they wish to change the process or any of the provisions in section 50 of the 2006 act. I would encourage the petitioners to get in touch with MSPs to discuss how that might be done. In due course, if anything, the table Parliament and this committee will take a view. I do not think that there is much further that we can do. I suggest that we note and close the petition, recognising that the planning bill is going through Parliament and that it is a planning provision. There is now scope over the next eight months or so to make amendments in this field if anyone feels that it is appropriate. It is also worth noting for the petitioner that it is not just MSPs who are members of the committee that can submit amendments at stage 2. It is open to all MSPs to do so. Are there any other comments? The mood from the two comments that we have heard on the nodding heads would suggest that we take the second approach here, which is to note and close the petition and make the petitioner aware of opportunities potentially at stage 2 or stage 3 in relation to amendments. Would that be agreed? I thank everyone for that. That concludes agenda item 5. We are moving to agenda item 6, which we previously agreed will conduct in private.