 Good morning, and welcome to the 36th meeting of the local government and communities committee in 2018. Can I remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones? As meeting papers are provided in digit format, tablets may be used by members during the meeting. Today we have received apologies from Alec Rowley. This is the first fourth day of stage 1 evidence in the full poverty bill and our final evidence session before we consider our report to parliament on the bill in the new year, and I welcome today Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Amanda Callaghan, Head of Tackling Fuel Poverty Unit and Ailey Clarkson Statistician, Scottish Government. I also welcome Jackie Baillie and Liam McArthur to the committee meeting who are in attendance for this item. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. As you know, the fuel poverty bill has three key aims. Those are to set a target that, by 2040, no more than 5 per cent of Scottish households are in fuel poverty to create a new definition that better aligns fuel poverty with relative income poverty and to produce a long-term fuel poverty strategy. Scotland is one of only a handful of European countries to define fuel poverty, let alone set a goal to eradicate it. Achieving the target will play Scotland among the very best in the world in tackling fuel poverty. Let me say a few words on each of those three aims ahead of questions. In the target, there is no doubt in my mind that our target is challenging, but achievable and importantly deliverable. Of the four key drivers of fuel poverty, two are outwith our direct control. Those are fuel prices and income. Therefore, we are concentrating on two of the drivers that we can change—poor energy efficiency and how energy is used in the home. We must bear in mind that most Scottish homes are owner-occupier, and bringing those households out of fuel poverty will involve a level of intervention in their private homes that is unprecedented and relies on technology being affordable and in line with low-carbon technologies. To bring forward the target date, risks rise in fuel poverty due to higher installation or operating costs for households. The 2040 target gives us time to bring the public with us and aligns with energy-efficient Scotland's target of all fewer poor households reaching EPC band B by 2040, if technically feasible, cost-effective and affordable. We want Scotland to continue as a world leader in tackling fuel poverty, so it is important that we create jobs and opportunities for new workforce skillsets and to allow local supply chains to evolve to deliver low-cost, low-carbon heating solutions in local communities to ensure that local economies feel the benefit. I want to make clear that I expect considerable progress to be made in our fight against fuel poverty well ahead of the 2040 target date. Our draft fuel poverty strategy, published alongside the bill, contains important interim milestones. The first of these is that by 2030, the overall fuel poverty rate will be less than 15 per cent. The second is that the median full poverty gap, based on 2015 prices before adding inflation, will be no more than £350. I would like to inform the committee that I intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2 that will enshrine the two ambitious interim targets into legislation. Let me now turn to our definition. By bringing the definition of fuel poverty closer to the definition of relative income poverty, we aim to achieve a fairer Scotland. We are determined to put right the situation whereby, under the current definition, some households with low incomes do not qualify as fuel poor. I hope that you had a chance to read over the briefing that I sent in advance of today's session, which highlights that 76,000 more income poor households would be considered fuel poor than under the current definition in 2016. As you know, convener, we intend to use the minimum income standard produced by the Centre for Research and Social Policy at Loughborough University. That will be set at 90 per cent of that standard after the costs for fuel, housing, council tax, water rates and childcare are deducted. We want the new definition of fuel poverty to work for everyone, no matter where they live in Scotland. We have listened to calls that the measurement of fuel poverty should include an uplift in the minimum income standard for remote rural areas. In his oral evidence, Alistair Calder of Argyll and Bute Council suggested increasing the minimum income standard threshold to over 100 per cent in those areas. Ahead of stage 2, I can confirm to the committee that I will look at the suggestion seriously and consider how best such an uplift can be achieved for remote rural areas. Finally, on our draft strategy, I want to emphasise that we are determined to continue to work with partners and stakeholders across Scotland to ensure that the final strategy addresses all drivers of fuel poverty. I have had many discussions on the strategy and I know that what people want is a focus on delivery and ensuring that no-one has to live in a co-damp home. I look forward to answering your questions. Given that the Government failed to meet the 2016 target, do you think that it would be appropriate for penalties of any kind to be put in place to ensure that targets, minimum targets, interim targets and the final target were in place for the Government? Clearly, the huge rise in energy costs in the decade after the target was set in 2002 was a major factor in not meeting that target. When you consider that scenario, where fuel prices rose dramatically during the course of that, I do not think that it could have been reasonably foreseen when that target was announced that we would not meet it. I do think that it would have been unfair to have penalties in that regard. If fuel prices had risen in line with inflation at that point, what we would have seen under the current definition would have been a few poverty figures of 8.5 per cent rather than 24.9 per cent. Penalties for failure to meet the target, I do not believe that if penalties had been in place in respect of the 2016 target, it would have been met. We do not know which Government will be in power in 2040. I do not consider it to be appropriate to set out consequences in the bill for a future administration's failure to meet the target. Clearly, the consequences of not doing so are obviously political and reputational. I would hope that, convener, with what we have set out in the bill in terms of five-yearly reporting, that this Government and future Governments will be scrutinised by this committee and its successors and by the Parliament as a whole to see if we are on track. There has been a lot of talk about shortening the period. You mentioned that in your opening statement to 2030-2032. Can you expand a wee bit on the reasons why you think 2040 is the optimum time? The Scottish Government wants to set a target that is realistic and achievable. We believe that setting a target for 2040 was no more than 5 per cent of households being in fuel poverty at that time meets that achievability and realistic target setting. The 2040 target aligns with the EPC targets that are contained in energy efficiency Scotland's route map. It lends itself to the achievement of the interim target of the climate change bill. By 2040 Scotland's net emissions must be at least 78 per cent lower than the baseline. Bringing the target forward to a much earlier year would mean utilising technologies to reduce fuel poverty, which rely on existing high-carbon heating fuels. That would, in some cases, lead to households needing two interventions in the time period in order to meet climate change objectives as well as everything else. One of the other key things for me, convener, and I briefly touched on it in the opening remarks, is ensuring that we get the ultimate amount of benefit as a country from this programme. I have spoken to some members around the table about various aspects of delivery previously, and I am sorry if I am going to bore some people by repeating myself. For example, in Orkney, when I was first appointed to this role, it was suggested that I take away some of the money that Orkney had had in terms of the Heapsab scheme, because it had not been used. Looking at that, you could see the reasons why that had not been done, because there was not the pipeline of work there initially to get the skillset up to allow folk to get on with their job. In setting that target, we have a situation where we can set in place a pipeline to allow companies to boost the skillsets that are required in various parts of Scotland, rural and urban, so that they, too, can benefit in terms of employability in delivering on the schemes that we have in place. I think that 2040, as I say, is realistic. It is ambitious that we can do so. As I outlined in my opening remarks, I am willing to put interim targets into legislation to ensure that we continue to move forward. On that point, I would suggest that, if that was brought in earlier, it would be the existing larger companies that would benefit from it, as opposed to local workforces. I think that it is likely that larger companies who could tool up quicker would benefit. Beyond that, I think that we would have missed opportunities in terms of allowing small and medium-sized enterprises to carry on that work. One of the key things is that, in some regards, if we bring that forward, we might have to have two sets of interventions in folks' houses. An intervention might be using existing technology, which we would have to get rid of at a certain point to replace with more carbon-efficient technologies in the future. I think that there is a logicality to that. It is realistic, it is ambitious but it is deliverable. Okay. My last question is about the 5 per cent target. Why are you setting a 5 per cent as opposed to a zero target, which would leave what potentially 140,000 households in fuel poverty by 2014? The Government is absolutely committed to tackling fuel poverty wherever it exists in Scotland. We have a long-term ambition to eradicate fuel poverty, and we will keep working towards that. At the same time, it is important to recognise without doubt that there will be households who will move in and out of fuel poverty. I come back to the point that, while we can deal with certain aspects of that in terms of the energy efficiency programme and changing people's behaviours, we have no control over people's incomes or over fuel prices. There will always be a small amount of people who will move in and out of fuel poverty due to a change in their income or a change in the cost of energy. It is also important to note that the target is for no more than 5 per cent of households to be in fuel poverty in 2014. If we manage to get the level down to 5 per cent, we are not just going to say that that is job done and stop trying, because our ambition is to ensure that as many folk as possible are out of fuel poverty. We are talking about rural and island communities, and we are talking about the minimum income standard that is possibly raised to 100 per cent or even 110 per cent. What is really important from the evidence that we have received so far is not just the extent of the problem but the clarity on how we define and address those communities. For example, the current remote rural definition, Kirkwall, Lerwick, Rossie and Stornoway would not actually meet it, because the population is more than 3,000 on our island communities. I am sure that you will agree that in the islands there is a real issue at Orkney, and I am sure that Liam will go into this in some detail. 59 per cent of people in fuel poverty are the highest in Scotland, so I am just wondering how the minimum income standard can be incorporated and amended to ensure that all people on Scotland's islands are effectively covered by this, and how you can hone down remote rural on the mainland as well. As I said in my opening remarks, I intend to ask my officials to look very closely at all aspects of this. Mr Gibson, who of course represents islands himself in the form of Arran in the Cymru, knows full well some of the aspects of island life. We will look at the situation whereby Mr Gibson is right. Orkney, let's take Orkney as the example, would be classified as remote rural. Kirkwall, at this moment, would be classified as a remote town and not as remote rural. As we go through this work, we will look at those situations to see what we can do in that regard. Beyond that, in terms of the islands themselves, we are all very aware of the islands bill, and many parts of that have not yet come into force. Many parts of the islands act, should I say, have not yet come into force. However, I have said that we will carry out anilins impact assessment on all aspects of the bill before stage 3. In fact, that was a very last sentence in your briefing, but she supplied the committee with, so I have that sitting in front of me. One of the things that I was asking about last week in terms of some of the local authority representatives was how we are going to tackle this across Scotland at a local level. We have 32 local authorities with disparity in fuel poverty, which varies between 20 per cent and 59 per cent. We were already mentioned in Portney. Clearly, when the Government is looking to reduce fuel poverty, it looks for early winds and it might be addressed in low-hanging fruit, but clearly there will be issues of people who have much more deep-seated fuel poverty. One way of tackling that would be to give each local authority specific target, so that you are not just looking at a national target, you are giving each local authority specific target. Is that something that the Scottish Government would be looking to do to ensure that all areas of Scotland are addressed fuel poverty in an equal way? I have continued throughout this to have discussions with local authorities, the length and breadth of the country and with COSLA. That is not something that has come on the agenda, but it is something that I am willing to consider in co-operation with local authorities. Mr Gibson mentioned low-hanging fruit. In terms of many local authorities, we have seen with the utilisation of the resources that have been put in place for the Heaps Ab schemes, the Heaps area base schemes, we have seen a lot of low-hanging fruit already being grasped. I recognise without doubt that they need to look much more closely at how to deal with some of the more problematic areas. Many local authorities to their credit are already doing so with some very innovative schemes across the country. To take into account the difficulties that exist in certain places, we have ensured, as a Government, that the allocation of resource reflects the needs of various places. For example, our island councils benefit from three times more per head of population of spend on Heaps Ab schemes than those in the mainland, because we recognise that there are differences there. Beyond that, in terms of discussions and continued discussions with councils, I have allowed three or four weeks ago, further flexibilities in terms of delivery in island communities, looking at bringing in new things into schemes such as microgeneration, the removal of asbestos and the installation of oil tanks. We will look at those flexibilities and continue to do so. I will consider having further discussions with local authorities about setting individual targets, if that is deemed to be appropriate. In those targets, will you be addressing extreme fuel poverty, where a household is required to spend over 20 per cent of its income on fuel? The annual Scottish House conditions survey includes data on that, but it is not mentioned in the bill or the policy memorandum or the draft fuel poverty strategy. What would have thought they would be the people you would want to focus on first? In our draft strategy, we have proposed fuel poverty gap targets for 2030 and 2040, which consider the depth of fuel poverty. That is effectively a measure of the size of the gap between the household's required fuel bill to stay warm and the fuel bill to just afford if it was to spend 10 per cent of its income on fuel costs. A measure of the gap was something that the independent panel explored in relation to the proposed new definition and suggested as means by which the severity of fuel poverty can be better understood. The approach that we are proposing and all that we are doing is therefore in line with the panel's view and is designed to tackle those folks who are in extreme fuel poverty. Energy UK, the trade association that represents energy suppliers, is concerned that the targets' ambitious focus on reducing fuel poverty outright will be a challenge. Some factors such as the regulatory framework around energy prices, for example, do not fall within Scotland's devolved powers. In power, one of the big six said that they are concerned that perhaps the Scottish Government has overlooked some of the lessons learned from what they call the poorly designed 2002-2016 targets. They are saying that targets can be stretching but must be controllable, alluding to the fact that fuel costs and incomes are largely outwith the control of the Scottish Government. I think that our target is ambitious but deliverable. I do wish that we had control over the other two levers of power in terms of energy prices and income. I think that that would make life much, much easier in terms of the formulation of the bill and also in terms of delivery. While we do not control those levers, that is not to say that we are not making efforts to try and change some of the things that are going on out there. Colleagues and I have met, on a number of occasions, with the energy providers around about some of the obligations that we feel that they should have. For example, I have gone on record on a number of occasions saying that I find the use of pre-payment meters in households that are most fuel-poor to be in an awful situation. I wish that we had the ability to deal with that but we do not have those powers. That is not to say that we will not continue to argue with those companies about those issues. In terms of energy delivery itself, the Scottish Government will consult in 2019 on proposals for a public energy company for Scotland with the twin objectives that were set out by the First Minister to help address fuel poverty and to support economic development. Our consultation will seek the views on the outline business case that is currently being developed on our behalf. While we do not have full control, we will always try where we can to bring other policies into place to try and deal with some of the situations that are currently out with this Parliament's control. Andy Wightman, thank you very much. I want to raise the question that you said that the Scottish Parliament has no control over people's incomes etc. What we are talking about in the definition is not people's gross incomes but their net incomes and then their incomes after certain costs have been taken out. Would you agree that we have substantial control over people's net incomes on the basis that we control how much income tax they pay, council tax, we control 15 per cent of the benefits system, housing costs, rents etc. We are all substantially under our control public sector workers or 20 per cent of the workforce that we control public sector pay. We have a lot of control over people's net incomes for the purposes of assessing fuel poverty. However, there are also a lot of areas that we do not control at all. We do not control, for example, the national minimum wage. Let me give an example of where, if we did have powers, we could make some difference. Universal credit, convener, which we do not control, has a huge impact. With the changes that have been brought into play by the UK Government, there is very little that we can do around that. Mr Wightman points out that we will control some aspects of the social security system. However, 85 per cent of the social security system still lies under the control of the UK Government. Although there are some things that we can do, and we are doing them, we have at this moment in time officials looking at housing costs and various other aspects of people's lives and how that affects our income. However, large swathes of that still lie with the UK Government. While we can, in some cases, tinker at the edges, sometimes do a little bit more than that, we have to take cognisance that a large amount of that still rests with the UK Government. I do not want to get into debate about how large, but given that we control how much income tax people pay and council taxes and housing costs and all that, and that is a net figure, I think that we have more control than perhaps you are suggesting we do. I want to move on to the definition itself, which most witnesses have described, and I think that we would all recognise. It is a more complex definition than the current one. When we have been out visiting local authorities in parts of Scotland looking at fuel poverty, we need to deliver the strategy to implement measures that are designed to reduce fuel poverty, local authorities and others use proxies—cancel tax bans, take-up of benefits, etc. In your view, will those proxies have to change substantially, given the new definition, which gives a more accurate and a more new option, a more targeted definition of fuel poverty, or are the current proxies that are used in heapsab schemes, etc, still relevant? Convener, the new definition, just like the current one, is primarily a statistical tool for giving us a nationwide picture of fuel poverty. As Mr Whiteman rightly pointed out, our fuel poverty schemes generally use various proxies, such as receipt of particular benefits, and we do not have any plans to change the use of proxies at present. However, we intend to review the proxies that are used, particularly for the eligibility of our warmer home Scotland scheme, to consider whether those could be more closely aligned with the proposed new definition. We will continue to look at all of that. One of the things that I am always keen to hear is from local authorities about particular circumstances in their areas, where another proxy could be used. I have had discussions with some members around the table about all of that. Members will be aware that we are also looking at a doorstep tool to deal with some of that. I know that that is looked upon favourably by a number of stakeholders, not so favourably by others, but we will continue to work with people in those regards in order to get that right. Thank you very much. You circulated a letter to the committee earlier this week. In Annex B, you include the example of Anne, who is a single parent with a six-year-old child at school. She is currently not in fuel poverty under the existing definition, but your workings in Annex B show that, under the proposed definition, she would be in fuel poverty. Anne lives in West Lothian. How do West Lothian Council find Anne now that she is in fuel poverty? I am trying to find Anne here, if you bear with me, convener. In terms of West Lothian Council, I am able to answer how West Lothian Council finds Anne. I am unaware of the day-to-day workings of how West Lothian Council deals with that. I will say that, in general, in terms of some of the visits that I have had around the country during the course of the discussions of the bill, it would be fair to say that some councils would be more adept at finding Anne and dealing with Anne's situation than others. What we need to do is to make sure that we have in place the abilities in each place to find the likes of Anne. In some cases, Anne would be easily found in areas where there have been base schemes taking place, where people have been spoken to and where lots of Anne's exist in a particular place. If Anne lived in an area where there is not so much poverty, Anne would be harder to find in certain places for a local authority. We need to turn that around in co-operation, not only with local authorities but with other partners, to ensure that we reach all of those people. Mr Gibson rightly pointed out earlier that, in some regards and in some places, we already have found all the low-hanging fruit and help folks in those areas, particularly through area-based schemes. We need to become a little bit more sophisticated in that regard in some places. Some local authorities are further advanced than others in that regard. I would secure agreement that, in a more nuanced definition, where people like Anne are coming into the system, it is pointless to have a new definition for national statistical purposes unless we are able to locate the people who are in fuel poverty and therefore are able to take them out of it. Do you agree? No, I do not agree with that, because this is only part of the picture. As I said, this is a national overview, but in terms of looking at proxies, it is looking at proxy measures that are relevant to local authorities as well. One of the most interesting things about the discussions that I have had over the peace convener is that we end up in these meetings talking about the bill for a very short period of time. Local authorities and other stakeholders are far more interested in how we get better at targeting those folks in most need. In terms of all that, we have seen some great work going on across the country through heapsab schemes, warmworks and other schemes. What we need to do now is to ensure that we up the level in reaching those folks who have fallen into fuel poverty who have not yet been covered by some of the schemes that we currently have in place. Local authorities, as delivery partners, are the best place to do so. They will put those proxies in place. I know that many local authorities are looking in depth at all of that, and we will continue to encourage that as we move forward. I want to jump back, if I can, to the line of questioning that Mr Gibson was following. In the latest house condition survey, there was evidence that the fuel poverty gap between rural Scotland and urban Scotland has widened in a very short space of time in the past two years. I want to be clear about what you are committing to here. We mentioned the minimum income standard. We have heard evidence and calls for a specific minimum income standard, or a rural minimum income standard. Are you committing to either of those at stage 2? In his evidence, Professor Hirsh said that a Scotland-wide minimum income standard would not be that much different from the UK minimum income standard. What I have said and I am committing to is to look further at remote rural areas. I am taking into account what Mr Gibson has said about the difference between remote rural and remote towns, because I think that that is an important distinction to make. I am looking at the minimum income standard threshold in those areas. I will ask my officials to look at that in some depth. I am more than happy to share information with the committee in that regard. We will then look at decisions about what is required in terms of moving forward in that front. That possibly could be an amendment to the bill? Convener, what we have got to do first of all is to find out exactly what difference having that would make. Does it make any difference? Obviously, if that were to make a difference, then the likelihood is that there would be amendments brought forward in that regard, recognising that those differences are there. First of all, we have to do that job of work to see exactly what difference that makes. However, I reiterate the point that there is a difference between the remote rural aspect and the Scotland aspect. From what I have read from Professor Hershey's evidence, there is very little difference between the UK and having a separate Scottish myth. You are absolutely right. I have another line of questioning, convener. I can follow it now, if you want to. One of the key drivers of fuel poverty is, of course, energy efficiency, which we can do something about in Scotland. That can be either retrofitting existing houses or building new houses to the highest standard possible. The highest standard possible, as far as I know, is passive housing, where you require very little heating, indeed. That can eliminate fuel poverty. Do you have any plans to introduce passive housing as the standard for new housing? What plans do you have in terms of retrofitting to have the highest standard of retrofitting possible? Convener, as the committee will be well aware, the Government has opened up a discussion around about housing beyond 2021. I and colleagues have been asking people to act as ambassadors to get as many people as possible to get involved in that discussion and then respond to the consultation. There are many things in the agenda that have been brought up already by stakeholders, including looking at standards. That is the place where we should have the discussion about how we move on in the future in terms of the affordable housing programmes and the delivery of social housing. I regularly visit the new social housing to a very high standard. Beyond that, we also have the owner-occupied sector to look at when it comes to those issues. I have said to the committee previously that I will continue to look at building standards across the board. I had hoped that we would be much further advanced in terms of some of the building standards work that I want to see being reviewed, but unfortunately as the committee well knows, a huge amount of effort in terms of my building standards officials has been on dealing with the aftermath of the tragedy at Grenfell to make sure that our building standards regulations are absolutely spot-on right when it comes to safety. I do not want to say that we are coming to the end of that work because we are not, but there is less going on in that piece now with the independent panels having reported, and now we will move on in terms of legislation and other aspects. There is some free space to look at building standards as a whole, and you can be assured that I will be looking and reviewing what is required as we move forward for all housing types and not just in the affordable and social sector. As you know, we visited Stonaway, and we heard some anecdotal evidence of work being carried out on houses that were not up to scratch and a lack of monitoring of work that has been done. Government pays for work, it could be this Government or it could be the UK Government. It does not really matter. It is paying for work to be done on housing. Nobody is following up, and nobody is checking the work. There are cowboys out there who are doing substantive work at the public expense. Do you have any plans to sort that out? In terms of Mr Simpson's comment that there is no difference between the UK Government schemes and the Scottish Government schemes, there is a great difference between the UK Government schemes and the Scottish Government schemes. I get crossing my desk quite a lot of complaints around about some of the work that is going on, and I would say that a huge amount of those complaints are around about the UK Government schemes. If we look at, for example, the warmworks situation, the standard of work is high, the customer satisfaction rates are high, and where there are difficulties, and I am not saying that it is perfect either, where there are difficulties, those are dealt with quickly and efficiently, I would say. I wish that it were the same for the UK schemes. In terms of checking, I think that it is very interesting that Mr Simpson has raised that, because one of the things that I found during the course of visits across the country during the summer was that, in some areas where it comes to the heaps area base schemes, it was suggested to me by a local authority that some of the people who were in delivery of that scheme felt that there was too much checking. I think that we have to balance that out. In terms of the schemes that we are delivering, we are getting it right. I am not convinced by the UK Government-backed schemes where there have been, as Mr Simpson describes them, cowboys. I wouldn't use that term. There have been folks who have not been up to the job and who have left people in very difficult situations. We have constantly been on to the UK Government to try and resolve some of those situations. There have been some steps at various points, but there are still large amounts of people in Scotland who have houses that have been severely damaged by the bad fitting of unsuitable energy efficiency measures. If anyone at any point has anything to tell me about the Scottish schemes and them not working, I will act appropriately and speedily to resolve those situations. It seems to me that you are right. The evidence that we heard was really around the UK schemes, but that works going on in Scotland, as you know. If it is not done properly, if it is a botched job, people can still be left with homes that are cold and we have spent taxpayers' money to get jobs done. The committee has to produce a report, and I certainly personally wouldn't be a verse to highlighting this as an issue, whichever Government it is. In this case, it is the UK Government. I think that if you could provide us with some evidence, that would be very useful. I am quite happy to do so. If the committee in its report wants to highlight to the UK Government that it needs to do much better in terms of the delivery of the schemes that it is responsible for, I would be very happy. If it wants to go further in that and to tell the UK Government that it should resolve the difficulties for householders and the likes of the east end of Glasgow and Rutherglen and many other parts of Scotland, I would welcome that, because I and my colleagues have communicated with the UK Government about this on numerous occasions to try to get the finger out and resolve those problems for folks who, in some cases, cannot sell their homes because they do not have the appropriate building warrants. That is absolutely unacceptable, so I would welcome any help that the committee could give in that regard. In terms of some of the UK schemes, if you look at Home Energy Scotland, it won the best customer focus award this year, which is a huge focus, and the customer service satisfaction rates are 97.7 per cent. I handed out certificates to some employees earlier on this year who achieved 100 per cent customer satisfaction levels, which is quite incredible. Obviously, I am being corrected because I said UK scheme, I should have said Scottish scheme. Home Energy Scotland is a Scottish scheme. If we look at Warmworks, it won the best service award for medium and large organisations. We have award-winning schemes here in Scotland, rather than some of the schemes that are run by the UK, which would not even get the wooden spoon in my boot, convener. You will send us that information because that would be really useful. I am more than happy to share that kind of information with the committee, convener. Can I ask about the consultation requirements? I sat out in the bill on how that compares with the previous consultation and what any lessons learned from that previous consultation? I cannot really talk about the consultation in the previous bill, convener, because that is well before my time. As well as the formal consultations that go on, I am one of those folks who believes in getting out and about and finding exactly what is going on on the ground. We will continue to liaise with stakeholders and who are living in or who have lived in fuel poverty in order to develop not just the strategy but also delivery. In order to get that strategy absolutely right, in order for us to be able to direct support appropriately, we must take cognisance of those folks who are in most need and we will continue to do so. I met a group of tenants yesterday from the Wheatley group housing associations, their welfare reform social security panel, to hear first hand where they thought difficulties still remained and what we should do in terms of moving forward. It has to be said that a large amount of yesterday's conversation was round about the capping of prices of energy companies in the way that energy companies treat people at certain points and about incomes, particularly benefit. A large amount of yesterday's discussions was round about universal credit. I will continue to listen to folk like those people yesterday. I am very grateful to them for allowing me to speak to them. You can be assured that, as we move forward, we will continue to do that. We have touched on the draft's fuel poverty strategy. It would be interesting to get your comments about the criticism that the Government has received with reference to the draft policy, because there seems to be a lack of detail on specific policies and programmes, and it focuses too much on energy efficiency. That seems to be some of the criticisms that people have already put forward with reference to the scheme. What stakeholders have already said and they want to see is the opportunity to have suggestions for changes to the strategy. It would be good to hear the minister's views on that. Convener, there obviously is an emphasis on energy efficiency, because that is one of the drivers that we control. However, the draft's fuel poverty strategy provides detail on all four drivers of fuel poverty and the various support that is available to those in need. From our national fuel poverty programme, Warmer Homes Scotland award-winning, to the funding of Home Energy Scotland award-winning, to providing free and impartial energy advice to callers via their free phone hotline. In addition, Homes Scotland is the only referral route for households experiencing fuel poverty to our national energy efficiency schemes. It should be noted that what we have, as Mr Stewart has rightly pointed out, is a draft strategy. I think that our stakeholders at a national and local level have a critical role to play in helping us to develop that final fuel poverty strategy. There is nothing better than a critical friend. All of that is not done and dusted. Folk can continue to have their say, and we will listen to what they have to say and develop the fuel poverty strategy accordingly. You identify that it is a draft, and there are still options and room for improvement across the piece. That gives local government and local authorities the chance to engage, and they will continue to engage. However, as we have already heard, some seem to be much more attuned because of the level of fuel poverty that they have within their own local government or local council area. How do you think that trying to manage that to ensure that all councils get the same opportunities to suggest that there is not all the same expertise across the piece with the authorities? We have to highlight best practice to help others along. If you look at what we have done recently on homelessness, Mr Stewart is well aware that many local authorities have been to see Perth and Kinross of late around about their rapid rehousing plan, as they formulate their own rapid rehousing plans. We need to look at the best of the best and point to other local authorities in the direction of what the exemplars are currently doing. We also need to highlight to people some of the schemes that are maybe a little bit different that local authorities have undertaken. For example, in Aberdeen City, one of the schemes that was beneficial was a scheme to deal with Victorian tournaments. I think that there are lessons that could be learned from that scheme and exported to other local authorities that have similar housing types. There are also third sector organisations that are doing extremely well in pinpointing those folks that are in most needs. We should take the best of the best and export that. I think that in terms of my discussions with COSLA, they are happy to help us in that regard. Like us, they want to get this absolutely right, so we need to celebrate the good work that is going on, use the exemplars and spread the message to others what can be done. Thank you very much, Annabelle. Thank you, minister. Turning to the issue of the reporting provisions in the bill, you will have noted from the evidence received thus far by the committee that there are different views about the frequency of such a reporting requirement. While the bill provides for a five-year period, others have suggested that perhaps that would be too infrequent. Perhaps the minister could share his views on where we are with that issue now, given the evidence that the committee has received. Convener, I have talked about the alignment with various other aspects of policy, including the carbon reduction bill, the bill that Mr Wheelhouse will bring forward a later point about district heating regimes and other aspects. I have touched upon energy efficient Scotland. We have proposed a five-year reporting cycle to align with the reporting being developed for energy efficient Scotland. The five-yearly report will be a stocktake of progress over the past five years and a look forward to the next five years. In addition to that, we will continue to publish the Scottish Housing Condition Survey, which includes the fuel poverty annual statistics and our annual programme delivery reports. We still have that annual report, if you like, in relation to the Scottish Housing Condition Survey and that five-year report. I think that the minister has answered it. Certainly those who advocated a more frequent reporting period of perhaps every two or three years felt that this would be beneficial in terms of being able to stocktake as to where we are on the journey to meet the targets at fourth. Has the minister considered the weighing of the benefits of such more frequent reporting against any particular challenges that he would see in setting forth a more frequent reporting requirement? I think that there is a logicality in terms of the alignment with the energy efficient Scotland reporting. However, if others have said that we should look at another timescale, I am more than willing to look at that. I am pragmatic. I would want to do something logically, and that is why we suggested the five years to align with the energy efficient Scotland work. For me, it is always important to avoid duplication in any unnecessary bureaucracy, or to create a situation in which the burden of reporting sometimes becomes greater than the delivery of the service that we are trying to deliver, in this case, energy efficiency measures in folk homes. I will look at that, but there is a logicality to what we have proposed. I am pleased that the minister will have a look at that. In terms of the substance of the reporting, the minister will be aware that CAS, among others, has suggested that substantive reporting should cover, among other things, the four drivers of fuel poverty, as has been discussed already in every evidence session, including this morning. Two of those four drivers are not within the direct control of the Scottish Government as powers currently stand. Will the minister be supportive of the CAS recommendation, notwithstanding that the four drivers are included in the substantive provisions of the reporting? Absolutely supportive of CAS's suggestions on that front. Although we do not control two of the drivers, it is an imperative for us to report on all four. In terms of CAS's suggestion, that is what people would expect us to do to cover all aspects of this, whether the Parliament is in control or not. That is an interesting response. There had been a suggestion that there would be provision for an independent oversight body in the bill itself. I wonder what the minister feels about the efficacy of such a suggestion. I believe that the current provisions are robust enough. In terms of scrutiny, I would expect this committee and the Parliament as a whole to act as the scrutineer in terms of all of that. We have just talked about reporting periods and it is quite pragmatic, and we will look at some of that. As I said earlier, I do not want duplication or additional bureaucracies where they are unnecessary. I think that this committee has been quite good in terms of scrutiny over the peace. I think that the scrutiny of all of that should be done by this place, this committee, and this Parliament. A slightly different area of questioning, but, as you know, the DPLR committee reports—I am very sorry, minister—that it gets a bit technical here. The report highlighted one of the powers in the bill that would allow the Scottish Government to change the definition of minimum income standard and to appoint another person, as the Scottish Government made from time to time, to determine somebody other than Loughborough University and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The committee suggested that that person should be independent from the Scottish Government. What is your take on that? I came prepared because I expected some DPLR questions, as is always the case. I think that Mr Simpson is talking about the concerns regarding the number and scope of powers to alter the definition of fuel poverty. That is actually my next question. You are too well prepared. I am too well prepared, and I thank those folks for it. The type of person. Section 26E2 of the bill—that is how well prepared I am, Mr Simpson. As my officials have explained to the DPLRC, the intention would be for ministers to use this administrative power if they had to react quickly to designate someone other than the academic institution and charitable bodies that are referred to in section 26E1 at Loughborough University and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, as Mr Simpson well knows. That would only be used if those entities stopped publishing Ms or changed their name or otherwise ceased to exist in their current form. The difficulty is that, as far as we are aware, Loughborough University is the only body that produces the UK Ms. That said, I will have the Scottish Government legal team look into the concerns of the DPLRC in further detail. However, as Mr Simpson is well aware, as it stands, Loughborough University and Joseph Rowntree Foundation are the best when it comes to Ms. I did not even mean that, convener. That reminds me of that session that we have talked about earlier on. I did not. I am ashamed of myself. Gideon, do you have another question to ask the minister? I will ask it with some intrepidation. The one intrepidation that I was going to answer first. There is some wide scope of powers in the bill to alter the definition of fuel poverty. Obviously, if a Government was to do that, not just this Government, but you could alter the definition in order to take people out of fuel poverty, that is a possibility if you had a cynical Government that could do that. There were concerns around this from the DPLRC committee. I wonder whether you could respond to those concerns. I will, convener. Both kinds of regulations would be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Moreover, under section 11 of the bill, ministers would require to consult with those that they consider appropriate, who would have to include those living or who have lived in fuel poverty. Thus, any regulations that would alter the definition of fuel poverty proposed by the bill would come under a very high degree of scrutiny indeed. I welcome the DPLRC's lines of questioning and all of that, because I think that that level of scrutiny is required. I hope that that response gives Mr Simpson the comfort that he was looking for. Thank you. I just appreciate the minister not throwing in a joke. I thank Liam McArthur and Jackie Baillie for their patience and sitting through this committee. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask the minister? Yes, convener. I recognise that it is indeed Panto season, given the minister's jokes earlier. Can I declare an interest to it as the honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland, and I would refer members to my register of interests? Can I stick with definitions for a moment, minister? I am interested to understand the thinking behind some of the changes that you have made. People tell me that those who suffer most from fuel poverty are in fact pensioners and those living in rural areas. I am sure that Liam McArthur will come on to explore one aspect of that with you. Sticking with pensioners, you have moved the definition from 60 to 75. I am sure that you would accept that there are many people in Scotland who do not reach the age of 75 but are in quite acute fuel poverty. Can I ask why you have removed them from the definition? Convener, there are many people who suffer from fuel poverty. Ms Baillie has highlighted those who live in rural areas, remote rural areas and older folks, but we have seen in some recent reports, including a report from Citizens Advice Scotland, if I remember rightly, that many folks who are now caught in the fuel poverty trap are younger people. I think that we have got to take cognisance of all parts of society, all demographics, those folks who live in urban and rural areas. It is not just about one set of demographics or one group of people. I would say to Ms Baillie in terms of the situation around about older folks is that households that are eligible for enhanced heating are to be defined in regulations. We said that we would consult in all of that. If we look at some of the key scenarios about older people, many more older people now are living healthy, active and independent lives well into their retirement. The independent panel that reviewed the definition of fuel poverty recommended that, if an age threshold were to be used to identify one of the categories of households that would be eligible for an enhanced heating regime, that threshold should be in the region of 75 to 80. In the draft strategy, we are proposing to adopt the lowest age suggested by the panel so that a household that is a member aged 75 or over would be covered by the enhanced heating regime. However, our draft strategy does not suggest that over 75 is the only criteria. It also states that households with at least one member self-reporting as having a physical or mental health condition or illness or expected to last 12 months or are more likely to be covered should be in that regime. I am sorry that I caused a scramble amongst your civil servants looking for sticky notes to hand you. They want to make sure that I get it absolutely right. Indeed, but it is very simple in the sense that you would acknowledge in some parts of Scotland that people do not reach the age of 75. By making that change in definition, you actually caused a 3 per cent drop. That is quite a substantial number of people who will no longer be regarded. I just wonder whether you could not review that because I think it is not about competing interests. It is about making sure that we catch everybody who is in fuel poverty. On the point of younger people, your definition starts at age five and over. Surely, the point at which a child potentially is most vulnerable is from zero to five. Again, I wonder whether you would review that to make sure that it is all encompassed. As I said at the very beginning of this, we will consult on those issues, so I am sure that folk will put in their views at that particular point in time. What I would say is, convener, is that we look very carefully at what the independent panel suggested when we came forward with those aspects of the bill. I have one final question, convener, and it is a very small one. There have been some accusations that this is a bit like business as usual. Indeed, it relates to finance, which of course is important for the bill. Energy Action Scotland said back in 2006 that the Government needed £200 million a year if they were to hit their target. Clearly now, you are at just over 100 million a year in the budget, 30 million of which is financial transactions, so that is repayable. Is that enough? Have you done modelling for your target of 2040, which may or may not be the one that ends up at the end? Have you done modelling as to whether that is sufficient to deliver on your vision? In terms of the modelling that has been done over the course of this, I might write to the committee in some more depth, rather than have Ms Clarkson go through all of the work that her and her colleagues have been done. Is the committee well aware that the Government committed to half a billion pounds worth of funding in the years and the run-up to 2021? We will meet that. As Ms Bailey and other members know, Mr Mackay, in the case of budget discussions, is willing to talk to every party around about that, but has he quite clearly stated that if there is to be more spend in one area, there would have to be an identification of where that money was coming from. In terms of the spend that we currently have, you can be assured that I will do everything possible to make sure that we get the best value that we possibly can to get the most interventions that we possibly can in people's homes to get them out of fuel poverty. We will send the modelling stuff, and I am sure that Mr Mackay is open to discussions with colleagues on the run-up to the budget, if that is what they want to do. I am not sure how much more progress we will make, because I know that the minister has already stated that he is prepared to keep on the review issues around definition, in particular concerns that have been raised about the failure for the bill to include a remote rural midst. However, in that context, I might reinforce that argument. Obviously, that is a recommendation from the rural fuel poverty task force, a recommendation from the independent expert panel. It is a view that is shared by every organisation across the islands and islands that has any involvement in seeking to address fuel poverty in that region and in other parts of rural Scotland. It is from what I have heard and what I have read of the evidence received by the committee, the overwhelming view of the witnesses that have given evidence that the bill needs to include a remote rural midst. The concerns that you raised previously about the potential increase in cost and the delay that would result from the inclusion of remote rural midst have been laid to rest by that evidence. The concern that you have raised today on top of that is about the potential exclusion of places such as Kirkwall, Stornoway and Lerwick. As I understand it, I have been again addressed by Professor Hush, who told the committee that there is no reason why the bill should not include category 4 remote rural towns, as well as category 6 remote rural settlements. In his view, the difference between disposable income in category 4 areas is marginal in relation to the rural community surrounding those towns. On that basis, building up a picture that the bill, in order to achieve its objectives and ensure that it does not artificially depress levels of rural poverty in rural and island areas, has to include a remote rural midst. I do not expect you to accede to that now, but I think that, with all due respect, I ask you to do again ahead of stage 2. Reconsider the position on that and ideally come forward with an amendment at stage 2. As Mr MacArthur knows very well, I have had discussions with a huge number of folk around a lot of issues that affect remote rural and island communities, including saying that Mr MacArthur himself, on a number of occasions in my door, is always open. We take a view at the beginning that it would be too costly to develop a regional midst situation, and it would take several years to do so. Quite frankly, in terms of spend, I would rather spend money on interventions where that is at all possible. That was put directly to the first panel in the committee, and they refuted that. The cost element would be marginal, and the Government is already committed to making changes to its own definition, and that in itself will incur a cost. As I said in my opening remarks, our Gail and Bute option deals with some of our cost concerns, but it also looks at other aspects of all that. That is why we will look at that. I am more than willing to continue to talk to members about all the issues that arise during the course of the scrutiny of the bill. Mr MacArthur knows that my door is open. We will do that work, as I have said, and we will come back and let the committee know exactly what the outcome of that work is. In terms of the island impact assessment that you have committed to carry out, I certainly welcome that. It would need to be as detailed as possible. It cannot be a desk-based exercise and will need to involve the engagement of local authorities, housing associations and, as I say, a range of stakeholders who have offered their views on the issue. As I said earlier, that part of the bill is not inactive yet, but in the spirit of the act—sorry, I keep saying the bill—that part of the island act is not inactive yet. In the spirit of all of that, we agreed that we would do an island impact assessment. Mr MacArthur knows that I listen to the folks of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the other islands, including Arran and the Cumbries. I thought that I would better get that, and our Mr Gibson won't forgive me in all that I do. We will ensure that the assessment is the right assessment. I thank everybody for their attendance today. I will now spend briefly to allow a witness change over for the next agenda item. The next item on our agenda is consideration of an affirmative statutory instrument. The instrument amends a tolerable standard in section 86 of the Housing Scotland Act 1987, adding requirements to have satisfied the equipment that is installed for detecting fire and carbon monoxide across all housing. The committee will take evidence on the instrument today, and I welcome again Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, who is joined by Luke Macaulay, Head of Housing Standards and Quality, in Custin, Simeonella, Lefevre, Solicitor Scottish Government. This instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament must approve the instrument before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I am grateful for the opportunity today to speak to this motion to approve the Housing Scotland Act 1987, tolerable standard, extension of criteria order, requiring all homes to have smoke and heat alarms, as well as carbon monoxide detectors, and strengthening and enhancing fire safety for all Scottish homes. The Scottish Government is committed to achieving improved fire safety, and, as I am sure the committee will agree, one death from a fire in Scotland is one too many. Back in June 2017, following the tragic events of Grenfell Tower, the Government took immediate steps to establish a ministerial working group on building and fire safety. The group was established to offer public reassurance and ensure that all lessons from Grenfell were applied here in Scotland, and to ensure that people are safe in Scotland's buildings. As part of that work, the group agreed that consultation on fire and smoke alarms originally proposed through the common housing quality standard forum and planned for winter 2017-18 should be prioritised. The consultation sought views on potential changes to standards required for fire and smoke alarms in domestic properties in Scotland. As it currently stands, there are different standards for fire and smoke alarms depending on the tenure of the home and when it was built. In consultation responses, there was very strong support for a common new minimum standard across all housing, regardless of tenure. There was also strong support for that new standard to be based on the standard that is currently applying to private rented sector property. Taking account of those views and is set out in the guidance accompanying the order, it is proposed that the existing high standard that is required in the private rented sector and of new build properties is extended to all homes. Alarms may be hardwired or long-life battery powered and should also be interlinked. If an alarm sounds in the kitchen, it might not be heard elsewhere in the house, so interlinking improves the chances of detection. Carbon monoxide alarms will also be required. Scotland already has rigorous standards for smoke and fire alarms, but we want and expect everyone to benefit from the same level of protection. The standard will come into force in February 2021, however, we hope that most people recognising the safety benefits will take action much sooner. Over the last 20 years, the number of fires has nearly halved and the number of fire fatalities has fallen by over 60 per cent. Significant progress has been made in fire safety as we look to realise our vision for safer and stronger communities across Scotland. However, we must not be complacent. We know that the presence of working fire and smoke alarms significantly reduces casualties and fatalities within the home, and that is why I ask you to support that motion today to improve fire safety in all Scottish homes. I thank the minister for responding to a number of written questions that I had ahead of this session. I think that it has been very useful indeed and will probably save us time today. One of my questions, as you recall, was around what happens if people can't afford to get these alarms fitted. You estimated in your reply to me that it could cost £200 to get some hard-wired alarms put in. I would suspect that it might be a bit more than that, because if you fit in new wiring into a house, you will have to redecorate, etc. However, irrespective of the cost, you produced a very interesting and useful table around what councils are doing. You said that councils have powers to provide advice and assistance, and it is called the scheme of assistance. We have a very patchy scene out there. It was quite illuminating. Twenty-one of Scotland's 32 councils have not given out any money in the past year under this. In fact, Glasgow accounts for 86 per cent of the money. My first question would be, are you planning to address this patchy situation? I am very grateful to Mr Simpson for his engagement with myself and with officials and for the questions that he has asked. I understand that all committee members have those answers. As Mr Simpson says, that helps to iron out a number of things. In terms of the scheme of assistance stats that Mr Simpson has highlighted, it is up to local authorities in terms of what they want to do, in terms of the scheme of assistance and what they want to spend in terms of those schemes of assistance. It is not for me to direct local authorities in that regard and how they should utilise their resource. However, my own experience as a councillor is that those schemes can be beneficial not only for the householder who is directly getting the resource but also for others. Again, as I said in response to Mr Stewart earlier, I think that there is best practice that could be looked at and exported and other authorities could benefit from some of the work that has gone on in certain places in that regard. It looked to me, like Glasgow, heavily promoting the scheme and others just aren't, so maybe we have the best practice in Glasgow but not elsewhere. I understand that the fire service can give out alarms to people who maybe can't afford them at the moment, but the alarms that they are giving out currently would not be compatible with your new standards. Is that something that you would be hoping to address? As you would expect, we have had a huge amount of conversation with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about those changes. Considerations are on-going with SFRS regarding potential funding to enable the new standard of alarms to be fitted through their home fire safety visits, which are carried out at high risk in vulnerable homes. We will continue those discussions with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as we move forward in order to get that right. I am going to look to Mr Macaulay to see if there is any further update from the SFRS on that issue, because I know that all of that has been pretty fluid. Yes, not really a further update other than those considerations are on-going. As Mr Stewart said, we have talked with the fire service and continue to do so right from the start of this consultation. I have very close engagement with them. As the minister said, those scoping discussions around the potential for funding at home fire safety visits for their more high risk and vulnerable visits is something that has been very actively considered. When we are talking about the tolerable standard, if a council goes into somebody's house and that home fails the tolerable standard, ultimately, the most severe penalty, if you like, is that they could tell somebody that they need to move out. You use the word proportionate in your response to my written question. In my view, it would not be proportionate to tell someone that they need to leave their home just because they do not have those alarms fitted. You are nodding your head, so I think that you probably agree with that. I am just wondering if we can set out something in guidance that makes that clear. There is always a difficulty in the use of language in guidance. Definitions of various words have been asked for at various points, and the word reasonable comes to mind as one of those questions. What I can assure Mr Simpson and all members is that I will go through the guidance with a fine tooth comb to make sure that what we have is proportionate. I agree completely and utterly with Mr Simpson that it would not be proportionate to put someone out of their house because they do not have the alarms or to demolish their house because they do not have the alarms. The committee can be assured that I will go through that with a fine tooth comb in order that we get that absolutely spot on right. In general terms, what publicity is undertaken when regulations change like this in a way that affects every home occupier in Scotland? There will be a lot of awareness raising around about those changes. Again, we will do that in combination with partners, including SFRS. We have also looked at ensuring that we have publicity so that people are not conned into buying something that is not the right fit for all of this. Again, we can be assured that we will be working on a strategy to ensure that we get those messages across to people. The last thing that I would want is for anybody to be hoodwinked into getting systems that are not compatible with the new legislation. We will work in partnership with others to make sure that we get all of that right. I just wanted to follow up with that very point because I can't think of the last time when legislation purported to require, but it appears to require because the idea that your house might be below terrible standards is something that people will not want to be the case. It appears to require and we will be talking about a lot of vulnerable people. The question of ensuring that there is some guidance on exactly what is required and what is not required and support available through the usual consumer support groups is incredibly important. We have had discussions with numerous folk, but I can assure Mr Wightman that we will talk to the likes of Citizens Advice Bureau and other consumer groups to get that message across. It is imperative that we get that right. I don't want to see anybody fleeced and we will get that right in terms of publicity. To be clear, that could involve things like newspaper adverts that say deadline approaching or maybe a little bit too alarmist. We would have to work that through. I am not going to sit here, convener, and say that newspaper adverts are the way forward to do that, because they may not be. One of the key things in all of this is the message from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as well as ourselves. Ms Ewing nodding there, as I am saying, has been immensely good in terms of all aspects of the work that stem from the ministerial working group. They are a trusted body. If there is a message to be gotten out there, I think that they could be really helpful in this regard. They, of course, are not the only ones, and we will look to make sure that we get that absolutely right. Anticipated to make the point of having sat on the ministerial working group and understanding the genesis of the regulations, which are very important in my view in seeking to protect people from firing the home, the SFRS is well trusted as a public service and, quite rightly so, they have earned that respect from the public. They are very well placed, indeed, to assist with the roll-out of this in a reasonable proportionate manner that does not alarm people but encourages people to consider their safety at home. I just wanted to make that point on the record. Thank you very much. In that case, then, we will move on to the next agenda item, which is for the committee to formally consider motion S5M-15050, calling for the local government and communities committee to recommend approval of the draft Housing Scotland Act 1987, tolerable standard, extension of criteria, order 2019. Having had the minister's assurances there, I am certainly minded to support this as Ms Ewing has alluded to stemmed from an important piece of work that followed the Grenfell tragedy, so we have to remember where this has come from. It is all about safety in the home, but clearly we are extending things to every home and we are extending things to the owner-occupied sector. As Mr Stewart said earlier, the private rented sector is already covered, but the owner-occupied sector is not. That is a very difficult nut to crack. I wanted to see a system that is more carrot than stick. That is what the minister is trying to get to. Given his assurances around guidance, given what he said about getting the fire service involved and their very important body in this, having the fire service point you in the right direction on what to get in your home would be a useful thing. Given all that, I would certainly be supportive of it. Thank you very much to any other members who are supposed to make a contribution in that case. I will briefly sum up, because David McGowan of the fire service has said a number of things around that. The presence of working smoke and heat detectors has been proven to significantly reduce casualties and fatalities occurring as a result of fires in the home. SFRS welcomes and supports the next steps from this consultation, which will undoubtedly improve home safety for all residents, regardless of tenure. Mr McGowan has been a member of the ministerial working group, as was Ms Ewing. I am very grateful to the fire service for their collaboration in all the work that we are doing. There have also been positive responses from tenants and from other tenants' daycoder organisations around about this move. Can I finish on a happy note, since this will be the last time that I appear in front of the committee this year? At least, I hope that that is the case. I would like to thank members for their co-operation around about this. I am always more than happy to provide the answers that people need around some of the bits that they think might be a little bit sticky. The fact that members, particularly Mr Simpson, went out of their way to ask questions, I think means that the entire committee has benefited from those answers. I think that that may be a major job a little bit easier today. I thank you and have a merry Christmas and a happy new year to you all. I have no doubt to see you early on in the new year. I have no doubt at all. Therefore, the question is that motion S5M-15050 in the name of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The committee will report on the outcome of this instrument shortly. Do members agree to delegate authority to me as convener to approve the final draft of the report? In that case, we thank the minister for his attendance, and I wish you and your officials a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I look forward to seeing you probably early in January. I will move the session into private.