 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the second meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Can I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones as they can interfere with the sound system, and as meeting papers are provided in digital format and tablets may be used by members during the meetings? That's what we're doing if UC is doing that. No apologies have been received for this morning's meeting, and we'll move straight to agenda item 1, where we have the Minister for Local Government and Housing with us. We will take evidence from the minister on key areas of his portfolio. I welcome Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing. Good morning, Kevin. I also welcome Donna McKinnon, Head of Local Government and Analytical Services division, John McNair, the chief planner and Caroline Dicks, Morhomes division Scottish Government. You are all very welcome. Thank you for coming along this morning. The minister has indicated that it would be good if you could make an opening statement to committee this morning before we move to questions. Thank you, convener, and I welcome you and other members to their roles in this committee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee this morning and to discuss the wide range of issues in my portfolio. I have to say that it's certainly different to be on this side of the table rather than at your side of the table, convener. My portfolio is both a challenging and interesting one. You will have noticed that I now have aspects of work of two previous ministers. I look forward to working closely with the committee while I serve as the minister for local government and housing. Whilst there is much in my remit for me to cover, can I also say what I don't cover? The local government boundary commission is now within the remit of the minister for parliamentary business. Local government finance, including council tax reform, remains with the remit of the finance secretary. Now I would like to make a few remarks about areas within my remit. This Government wishes to reinvigorate local government by reconnecting it with communities. Our aim is to transform our democratic landscape while protecting and renewing public services. One size does not fit all, but the principle of enabling local control not on behalf of a community but by a community will be key in all that we do. That will allow us to realise further our community empowerment agenda and require local government and its partners to relocate influence and control over some functions and local services closer to communities. A central aim will be to further enhance local accountability and the quality of service provision, taking account of Scotland's different geographies from islands through the mainland council areas, cities and their surrounding city regions. Government has already recognised that the right solutions for people may differ across Scotland's diverse communities. No one size will fit all. We will work with local authorities to review their roles and responsibilities and get more powers into the hands of communities. The Community Empowerment Act, passed by the last Parliament, provides a framework that will empower community bodies through the ownership of land and buildings and strengthen their voices and decisions that matter to them. We are developing the necessary secondary legislation and guidance, three consultations on community planning, asset transfer and participation requests have been published and we will continue working with stakeholders to implement the act. Community planning in Scotland continues to improve both locally and nationally, but we recognise the pace of improvement needs to step up. We expect that the Community Empowerment Act, together with other measures, will further increase the pace and extent of improvement. On participatory budgeting, we have committed to set councils a target of having at least 1 per cent of their budget subject to community choices budgeting and continuing to support the effective implementation of the Community Empowerment Act. We are currently looking at how the new commitment can be developed in collaboration with our stakeholders. The Government has an excellent track record on housing. We exceeded our target to deliver 30,000 affordable new homes, which included more than 20,000 for social rent. We have listened to what our partners say in terms of increasing the pace and the momentum of housing delivery. Our bold and ambitious target over the next five years is to deliver at least 50,000 affordable homes, of which at least 35,000 will be for social rent. Communities flourish when people have good quality, warm, comfortable homes to live in. That is why this Government's priority is to increase the scale and pace of the supply of the right homes in the right places, particularly in the affordable rented and private rented sectors. Scottish ministers are committed to ensuring that we have a planning system that works for everyone. An independent panel completed a route and branch review of Scotland's planning system, publishing its report on 31 May. Scottish ministers are considering the recommendations put forward by the panel and will publish our response in due course. Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak to you this morning and I look forward to answering your questions. I am going to bring in my colleague Andy Wightman, who wishes to ask some questions on housing, as I do, so perhaps we could start off there. I have no doubt that there has been a significant increase in the affordable housing budget and there are ambitious targets there. Do you believe that there is enough capacity in the housing sector to ensure that those targets can be met? In relation to those targets, communities wish houses to be built in the most appropriate places, perhaps at brownfield sites, for example, rather than green belt development, where some local authorities aggressively release land because it is easier for development, but not always necessarily what communities wish, so is there enough capacity within the construction sector to meet those targets within the budget allocated and how do we make sure that we actually get the houses built where communities wish them to be built? Obviously, we have set ourselves a challenging target of 50,000 affordable homes. My job is to ensure that everything aligns to ensure that that happens. At a very early stage, I have already spoken to a number of folk and organisations that are pretty enthusiastic, I have to say, about the Government's target. In terms of capacity, we have seen in recent times an increase in the amount of apprentices who have entered into construction. I had a meeting yesterday with homes for Scotland to talk about some of the challenges that they face, and we will try and help to overcome that. The other thing that you mentioned is to ensure that planning is aligned with our ambition to build those 50,000 houses. I think that it comes as no surprise that planning and housing are within my remit, and what I need to do with my officials is to make sure that everything aligns so that at least 50,000 targets are met. Thank you, miss, for that answer. You mentioned the significant budget that has been allocated. I assume that the Government has done some modelling work in relation to the 35,000 minimum social housing units that would be part of that 50,000 target. Is that something that you might now have to review in relation to the uncertainty within various sectors of the Scottish and UK economy following the Brexit vote? Do you have any concerns in relation to additional costs in the sector? Could this compromise the Scottish Government's ambition for 50,000 affordable houses? Even if it does not, can you give us some more information in relation to the cost assumptions that sit within the money that is allocated? I will bring Caroline Dixon at a point, but let me start by talking about what has happened over the past few days, which of course is extremely worrying. Of course, the First Minister has been doing all that she can to ensure that she has confidence. However, we have seen, over the past few days, since the result came in on Friday morning of the European Union referendum. We have seen house builders and lenders being severely hit by the shock to the stock markets. Share prices have fallen by as much as 40 per cent, although both sectors seem to have recovered a little bit yesterday as markets stabilised. However, in discussion with Homes for Scotland yesterday, they obviously have concerns. I heard of a situation yesterday from Homes for Scotland where one of their members was saying that already they had had a Polish family withdrawal from a house sale because they were feeling a little bit worried about the situation. I think that it is up to all of us to try and boost confidence of the European nationals who live here, who have come to work here and who are welcome here. I am glad that all of the leaders of our political parties joined with the First Minister yesterday to reiterate the fact that people are welcome here. However, we have a difficulty in building that confidence. Obviously, we are in early days in terms of the fallout from the result last Friday. You can be assured that I will be keeping a close eye on the implications of that result, as well as all of my officials. I have already said to Homes for Scotland and others who have spoken to us since that if they have any information to feed in about anything that is happening out there, then please do so so that we can analyse exactly what is happening. If I can beg your indulgence now, I will bring in Caroline Dicks. You asked about the modelling in terms of the Government's targets specifically for 35,000 social homes. The important part of the Government's budget in terms of delivering those homes is the grant element of the budget that goes to housing associations and councils. In the current financial year, that has been increased significantly to reflect the increase in the Government's ambition and targets. For example, in the current year, the grant budget in the housing supply budget has increased by £100 million to support that programme. Again, as the minister said, we work closely with our stakeholders and earlier in the year we had discussed with both councils and housing associations the level of subsidy they would need to deliver the social homes. The Government increased the grant subsidy that was available to those organisations to allow the homes to be built. I know that there is no such thing as a typical home, but there used to be a working assumption that, if you like, the box-standard home. Apologies, that is not terminology. We would have a certain level of housing association grant. What is the notional housing association subsidy grant present? It depends. We have a table that shows different grant subsidy levels for different parts of the country, and we can provide that table to the committee so that you can see the detail of that. For example, the grant subsidy for a council home is about £57,000. That reflects the increase that I was just talking about. We have different subsidy levels for housing associations that might be built in the central belt in the urban areas. We apply a higher subsidy, for example, if housing associations are working in very remote rural areas or in island communities where costs might be higher, so our subsidies will reflect that. We can supply you with all the detail of that in some depth, convener, if you so wish. Obviously, the question that you have asked is quite technical and there are a number of answers to that question. We can supply the committee with the breakdown of those grants so that you have a full knowledge of what it actually means. As you can probably gather from Ms Dix's answer, one size does not fit all here. Absolutely, minister. I am very much aware of that. That information would be very helpful, but the committee will need some comparisons. Obviously, the question that I am trying to tease out is whether it becomes more expensive to build than it previously would have been if greater subsidies are needed going forward. There is no such thing as a typical housing association grant subsidy, of course, but if there is a table out there and a framework out there, that allows us to see if that is needed to be changed. The Scottish Government, in previous years, has had to change that level of subsidy to meet its housing targets. I thank you for those answers and I have a couple of supplementaries before I bring Andy in, so I will take Kenny Gibson first. Good morning, minister. One of the things that I wanted to know about the 50,000 houses is how are they going to be allocated in terms of geographic spread? Is it going to be demand led, for example, or is it going to be proportionate? If we think about our own area, 2.5 per cent of Scotland's population, would we get 2.5 per cent of the houses, for example? Now, demand may be lower in our area, but at the same time, employment is also a lot lower and unemployment is a lot higher. Ironically, if it is demand led, a lot of the jobs and construction would therefore be directed to places where there are already high levels of unemployment in areas that have got lower unemployment would obviously suffer. I am just wondering what the Scottish Government is thinking about this, because we could end up with a disparity and it could increase the difference between the more prosperous and less prosperous areas of Scotland. Obviously, this is going to be driven by need, and obviously each area has its own assessment in terms of its housing need. Mr Gibson rightly talks about his own constituency as he always does in this place. I will be visiting our Drossan in the very near future to visit a new-build site there. I am keen to get around about the country and talk to stakeholders in local government and in housing associations to see what they think is required. I have already spoken to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and discussions there will continue. The key thing for the Government is to make sure that those houses are built in the right places where there is actual need. Without naming an area, just the other week there was a suggestion that we should build more houses in a certain part of Scotland, but the reality is that the housing need there is almost nil, I have been told. It would be pointless for us to build homes that remain empty. In terms of opportunity for all in terms of the programme, I am keen to see that programme that will support some 14,000 jobs. I am keen to see that there are benefits felt right across the country. In particular, I would like to ensure that we have all the right skill sets, as the convener mentioned earlier, and that we are opening up opportunities for apprentices. I was at North East College Aberdeen campus the other week and was pretty chuffed to hear apprentices there who were entering painting and decorating aspects of the construction industry. I was pleased to hear how they would enjoy their course. I would encourage others to look into having jobs in the construction sector. As a cross-cutting Government, we have to ensure that all of the right skill sets are there so that we can achieve our programme right across the country. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for Mr Gibson's constituents and others as we move on with the ambitious target. I will wait at a supplementary of Elaine Smith. Although Graham McHugh has indicated a supplementary, Andy Wist wishes to speak about housing as well. Andy Wist will note it in. Thanks very much, convener, and welcome minister to the committee and your position. I thank you for joining us this morning. I would like to pick up on something that the convener asked you in his first question, but I do not think that you fully responded, so if you do not mind me doing that. It is a matter of building on the green belt. Probably around the table we have all got examples of where communities are getting upset about proposals. For example, in my community, there is a development plan to build on the green belt between Canberra and Caldered Bank, so that is exercising the local community very much. I wondered if you could pick up on that, because the convener raised whether there would be some kind of presumption not to build on green belt, particularly for private developers and to look for brownfield sites. I think that a lot of those things are matters for local authorities to decide on their local development plans. Obviously, they have to look very carefully when they come to formulate those plans. We have a balance that needs to be struck, because we require land to build on, because we require a lot more houses in this country. I myself, as a constituency MSP, have heard somebody say in the past, yes, we need more houses, but I do not want them next to me. I think that we have got to strike the right balance. If we are going to achieve our ambitious programme and beyond that, see other house building across other tenures too, we have got to strike the right balance. Obviously, we have had the independent planning review of late, and the Government will give its response to that review very, very shortly indeed. However, I am not going to dictate to local authorities where or where not they should be building. I think that it is grand if we can get derelict and vacant land into use. I am keen to see that happen at brownfield sites, as the convener called them. At the same time, if you want me to sit here and say that there will be no building on green belt land, I cannot say that. It is a matter for local authorities to get that right in their local development plans, but beyond that, as I say, there is a balance that needs to be struck here. Everybody wants more houses, we need the right land to build them on. I probably would want you to say that, but I appreciate clearly that that is not something that you are going to do. Could you clarify, though, that it will be a matter for local authorities and that there has not been some change that, if it is over a certain number of houses, it is going to be the Scottish Government that decides? It will be up to local authorities to look at planning in their own particular locales. It will also be quite helpful, minister, as I know that the planning review is on-going, but in relation to particularly large local authorities such as Glasgow, where the local development plan gets fueled into MSPs in about 20 boxes, it is so voluminous. It is just impenetrable to the MSPs who have never mined local communities who are presented with FETA-complets. Sometimes the issue is not about whether or not green belt land is re-zoned for housing, but whether or not communities have any idea what local authorities are intending to do in relation to local development plans. As an MSP for Glasgow, I stay in a housing development adjacent to green belt land. A stone is thrown away from it and I was not informed as a Glasgow MSP by the local authority that they were intending to re-zone it. That can build a lot of distrust among communities irrespective of how they feel about land being re-zoned. I have very much hope in relation to the planning review that is on-going, that the level of consultation real and genuine and not just tick box statutory consultation is a meaningful part of any planning review. The planning review has reported, of course, convener. As I said, on 31 May it was published. I urge members to have a look at that. As I said, the Government will respond to that review in due course. The planning system should be development plan led and it should be open and transparent. One of the things that I am keen to see is that we have talked a lot about empowering people. I want to see consultations on development plans and other things that are easily understandable, where people have got the ability to have their say and to influence. Having been in a council previously in the previous local planning situation and at the very beginning of this new planning situation, I realised that there are complexities sometimes for folk to understand. We need to get rid of some of those complexities so that everybody can play a part in the formulation of the plan for their area. Some of the work that has been going on in terms of the Scottish Government's planning directorate is moving things forward apace. We have seen much more use of charrettes in recent times. I think that this publication plays standard how good is our place is something that everybody should read. Openness, transparency and making things as easy as possible for ordinary folk out there to engage in the system is the way that I want to move forward. If you do not mind, I will bring in Mr McNair here to add to my comments. As the minister said, we aspire to a plan-led system. If communities can be fully involved in the policies and allocations in that development plan, they are more likely to feel that it represents a vision for their community. One of the things that the review panel is saying is that planning needs to up its game in terms of community engagement and empowerment, not just in terms of making the development plan system more accessible to them but also giving them the option of bringing forward their own proposals that might in turn be part of the development plan. That early engagement is important. The other point that I would make is that it is clear that when there are interventions late in the system and the examination process, which consistently has felt that there are insufficient numbers coming through the development plan system, either allocates more land or looks for an early review, that can in itself cause tensions within the local community. Early engagement in front loading is very much part of the system that we want to promote. Can I maybe add one other thing, convener? I am very aware that some communities are much more able to respond to those kinds of things than others. I want to ensure that any community capacity building that is required also plays a part in that system. It is very helpful. Of course, you have to know what is happening irrespective of the capacity that a community has before it can respond. Obviously, as the Government responds to the review that has been published, that is something that you will look at in some detail. We will publish our response to the independent reviews recommendations in a very short course. It may not be for me to say to the committee what to do, but you may want to talk to the folks who carried out the independent review about how they reached their conclusions. I was just saying that you are the minister, Mr Stewart. That is a key principle in responding to the independent review that has now been published that you will take on board about how we make sure that communities are aware of what is happening within the local development process. The Government's response to the independent review panel will come out in due course. If you wish to take me back to the committee after that to discuss our responses, I am quite happy to do so, Mr Doris. I am sure that we will want to do that. You said in your opening remarks that the Scottish Government has an excellent track record on housing. However, house building is down by almost 40 per cent since 2007. That is mostly as a consequence of the private sector. Do you think that the model of house building that we have in Scotland and the UK, the speculative volume house building industry, in comparison to the more self-build model that exists in the rest of Europe, is fit for purpose? One of the problems that seems to me in Edinburgh is that we have a lot of land lying derelict, notably down by the waterfront. It is owned in offshore tax havens and it is at risk, if it already has not, of dropping out of the five-year land supply purely because the owner is not in a position to bring it forward. Are you open to ideas as to how we can ensure that land that has consent for housing that should be developed for housing, that there are mechanisms to ensure that that does happen and that the priorities and interests of the owner can't override the democratically expressed wishes of the local authority? First of all, I do think that the Government has an excellent record in housing. We managed to achieve 33,490 affordable houses, if I remember rightly, in the last term. Obviously, this target is much more ambitious than that. I would say about self-build, which featured in Mr Winkman's question. We already have a fund in the Highlands for self-build at this moment. I have asked for much more detail in self-build. I am not going to rule anything in or out. I am going to look very carefully at all aspects of house building. Mr Winkman can be assured that I will look at self-build and, if he wants to write to me further about that, I will lay out what I am doing at this moment in time in that regard and what the Government is doing. In terms of land banking, that is what Mr Winkman was talking about, where land has already been given permissions but nothing has been done. Obviously, we will look at that situation. I have to say that we have to wait and see what the repercussions of last week will do to the house building industry as a whole. As I said earlier, the response to Friday's decision was not particularly good. I can assure the committee that I will keep you informed of any repercussions of that decision on Friday. I welcome the opportunity to communicate further with you, minister, and I will do that. My first question was whether you consider the speculative volume house building industry to be fit for purpose. There is no doubt that they have the capacity to build houses. The problem is that they are not building houses and many people would argue that that is because of the very model of house building that we have in this country, where the vast majority of houses are built by a very small number of companies whose principal interest is as developers rather than house builders. I will look at all aspects of housing policy. As Mr Winkman is well aware, my feet are just under the desk. I am looking at every aspect of housing, which includes the ability to self-build, which, by the sense of it, Mr Winkman is keen on. We have got to ensure that we build housing across tenures. Obviously, the key thing for me is that 50,000 affordable housing targets. Beyond that, the committee can be assured that I am going to look at all aspects of housing across Scotland. As the minister mentioned earlier, there was a meeting yesterday with homes of Scotland and there is close contact with them as a stakeholder in supporting the private sector. He mentioned statistics earlier in your question. The main way that the Government has been supporting the sector is through the help-to-buy scheme. There was £305 million of support between 2013 and 2016 to support the sector to build homes for shared equity. In the next three years, a further £195 million has been provided by the Government to keep that support. In terms of smaller companies, there is a ring-fenced amount in that budget for smaller builders. There is also engagement with smaller builders at the moment. There is a survey being done with them to look at what support they need to engage in house building and to make sure that they are supported to as well as the bigger companies that might be accessing the help-to-buy scheme. Homes for Scotland are a key stakeholder, and they are members that we will communicate with constantly. In terms of the help-to-buy scheme that Ms Dix has mentioned, since 2007, the Scottish Government has supported over 22,700 households into home ownership. Three quarters of that is shared equity buyers who are under the age of 35. I am sure that we will return to housing as a recurrent theme in the lifetime of this committee. Can we move on for the moment, Graham Simpson, on a new subject? Thank you and thanks for attending, minister. It is probably an opportune moment to declare an interest in that I am still a councillor in South Lanarkshire. On to your more general proposals for local government. You told us at the start that you want to relocate influence and control to local communities. I am not entirely sure what that means. I wonder if you could put some flesh on the bones for that. Tell us if you have any plans to change the size and numbers of local authorities. Thank you, Mr Simpson. Having done the dual role of MSP and councillor for a year myself, I don't envy you at this moment in time. I did that for 12 months, too. It was rather onerous. I think that I coped, but others maybe have other things to say about that. Can I say that the Government's manifesto set out our intention to consult on and to introduce a bill that will decentralise local authority functions, budgets and democratic oversight to local communities? The timing of that bill will be determined in due course as part of the Government's wider consideration of the content of its future legislative programme. As I said earlier, we are clear that one size does not fit all. We will continue to grow and develop city deals, town centre partnerships and regional economic partnerships so that clusters of agencies and shared interests can work together for the benefit of their local economies and communities. Beyond that, of course, we have the opportunity of city region deals and the new regional economic partnerships, too. We will consult and we will come back and we will provide you with the timing of the bill at a later date. That's okay, yeah. You're talking about city regions. That would suggest to me that you may be thinking of merging functions in councils. Perhaps you could comment on that. I'm talking about the city region deals that already exist in Aberdeenshire, Glasgow and soon in Edinburgh and other places. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about merging anything. As I said, convener, we will consult on our proposals and we will come back with the timing of a bill after that consultation, after we have taken the views of the people and stakeholders into account. That's okay. In terms of decentralising, are we talking about handing powers from councils to communities? Perhaps you could confirm that. Is there anything in your thinking about decentralising powers from this place to councils? First of all, I should reiterate the Government's intention about community empowerment. The community empowerment act, as far as I'm concerned, was a flagship piece of legislation that went through the last Parliament. During the course of its formulation, the predecessor committee to this one went right across the country to talk to people about their experiences and where they thought things were going well and where they thought things were going not so well. I think that it would be fair to say that the predecessor committee itself had a major role to play in the formulation of the bill, with many of the amendments put forward by the committee being accepted and now, of course, are part of the act that will roll out, as I said earlier. One of the things that became extremely apparent as we were going around the country is that, in many places, people felt very, very distanced from the local authority. I'll give the committee a couple of examples, if I may convener. We were in Lochaber, as a committee. We went to Fort William, where folks had a lot of views about the local authority, Highland. The overriding opinion there was that Inverness seemed very, very distant. Beyond that, people seemed to be frustrated that they could not take control over various services themselves. I'll give you an example there. There was a group of folk who I spoke to who wanted to deal with the winter clearing services in their area because they felt that the council were not doing a good enough job. I can see absolutely no difficulty in that kind of thing happening. We also went to the Western Isles. It was quite surprising to hear from those folks from the southern islands how distanced they felt from Stornoway. One of the things that has happened since then is that, in terms of participatory budgeting, folks from those islands, have taken part in a participatory budgeting scheme there, where they are quite brave of Kinyan and Yellen Shear. I apologise to the Gaelic speakers out there for my mispronunciation, but they were brave in allowing the community to take part in a budgeting process for transport. Half a million pounds worth of contracts, where the community understands and helps to shape the new transport systems. Half a million pounds, I understand, reduce the amount of contracts from 14 to four. That happened in recent times and it will be an idea for us to analyse the benefits of having community involvement in that. Those are the kind of things that I would like to see happen. I am not particularly bothered about lines on maps. I am interested in what communities want, need and desire. Alexander Stewart has been very patient. Thank you very much, convener. I can also declare an interest as a serving member of Perth and Kinross Council. I look forward to the challenges of the next year or so. My question comes on from what you have said already. I thank you for giving us some indication that you will be dealing with the structures and timescales of reform as we move forward. Obviously, any reform has an impact on a community and could have consequences for jobs within that locale. There are a number of councils at the moment that work collaboratively or in partnership with one another, sharing some services and continuing to make economies of scale across the whole of Scotland. I know that that has worked quite well in some areas and others have found that quite challenging. There is a slight difference in opinion as to how that works and moves forward. It is important to get a flavour minister of the views that the Government is trying to bring forward. If they are attempting to see that within local government at the moment, we have a number of functions that take place, but probably the biggest function is education. I know that there is a review going on in education from other ministers and what impact there may well be with reference to education within local authority. It would be useful to get a flavour of the Government's views on that, because I think that that could have a huge impact on the current system and, going forward, could show us a very different organisation. Your question is about education. I am not sure whether it is about shared services or local government boundaries. Is it specifically about education reform? It is about, convener, the whole idea of sharing services. As I have said, that is working quite well, but I want to know if there are any opinions and views about education, because that is one of the biggest things that local government has to manage at present. The Government may have some views on that or they may not. I am just testing the water to see if there are any views. Minister of views on education. Education does not fall into my portfolio, convener. I would say about shared services. Many local authorities have worked in partnership to share services, which has worked very well in many places. It has led to savings in many cases, which has meant that money could be put back into front-line services, which, of course, is beneficial to people. There are some very good examples across the country where that has worked. The Aberdeen City and Shire joint procurement unit is one of the best examples that I can give. I do not know how much money is saved over the course, but it has also ensured that money has been diverted back into front-line services. I know that a number of local authorities, unfortunately, have not moved towards that co-operative sharing scenario. I encourage others to do so. One of the things that I am immensely keen in doing is ensuring that best practice is exported right throughout the country. One of the things that I am sure you will probably find as a committee is that you will hear a number of very, very good things that are going on at a local level. However, you ask folk who they have shared that with and whether that is being replicated elsewhere and you get a blank. The question eventually ended up on education, which was not within your remit. As the Minister for Local Government and Communities, where do you see your role in relation to any impact on local authorities that any education reform may bring? That is maybe what Mr Stewart was getting towards. I am sure that there is wonderful practice everywhere across Scotland in our communities. In this committee, we will go and look at that for ourselves, Mr Stewart. Just in terms of where you see your role as a Minister for Local Government in relation to any potential reforms with education. The First Minister stated in her first speech to Parliament that this would be a cross-cutting Government. Obviously, there will be discussions between myself and the Deputy First Minister as Cabinet Secretary for Education, but also as the lead for public sector reform, which he is. Before the Government embarks in that journey, as I have made very, very clear indeed, there will be consultation on all of these matters, which the people and stakeholders will hopefully feed into. I can assure the committee that the Government will work in a cross-cutting basis. Those discussions will be held across Government, but more importantly, before there are moves to change things, we will, as always, consult. Eileen Smith, do you want to follow up on that? If you do not mind just a specific question to the minister on that then. Minister, are you aware if there are any plans at all to look at removing skills from local authority control? If there were, would your remit as a minister give you an interest in that? My remit as a minister gives me an interest on many, many things. It has been a little bit of an eye-opener for me to see how much information is actually shared across Government and how often I am asked for my opinion. I think that is a particularly good thing. I am working in co-operation with numerous cabinet secretaries and ministers at this time on very, very many issues. Obviously, if there are any decisions made, I will obviously catch sight of that. My opinion will no doubt be asked for and I will give that opinion. However, the key thing in all of this, convener, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is in terms of reform that we bring forward. The key thing is to listen to the public in particular and see what their needs and desires are. I think that, as a Government, we have a fairly good record in doing so. That is one of the reasons why we have got that flagship community empowerment act that was passed in the last session of Parliament. I know that there is a supplementary issue, but do you want to come back on that? No, I think that the minister has answered it as much as he can at the moment. I have said, convener, that I cannot answer about every single aspect of education because that is not within my remit. I thought that we were more driving towards that. If the reforms in education were to have a direct impact on the wider local government remit, you would be in the room making those decisions rather than finding out the consequences of those decisions. As I said, the Government works in a cross-cutting way, so I would be notified given the information and my responses, I am sure, would be taken into account. However, the key thing is that I have always said, right along throughout this meeting and will continue to say throughout this parliamentary term, that the key thing for me is getting this right for the people of Scotland. The minister is not here to talk on education policy, of course, but he has remit his local government communities and housing minister. Is this on education? Yes, it is. It is very focused. It is very quick, because education is, as you know, a massive part of local government. Is it the Government's intention to review the education funding formula? The Government's intention is to review the education funding formula. We will establish a new, fair and transparent funding formula so that schools have clarity about the level of funding that is needed. We will receive funding that will enable them to plan for the future. The Government intends to ensure that funding goes directly to headteachers. Mr Gibson, was your supplementary on education also? It is a little supplementary. It is a little government reform. We will take Elaine first and then we will come back to that. Thank you very much, convener, specifically on the review of the funding for education. With the attainment fund, as I understand, £100 million of that would be found from council tax, while the rest would be from the Government. I have to ask the minister on that. How would that work? Would the Government be then asking councils with more council tax? For example, areas with bigger houses would perhaps be paying more, so would that then be spread out to areas where the attainment fund was more needed? How exactly would you envisage that working? How would that play out for councils, if you like, to use their own council tax and spend it? I am not sure that it is a supplementary, but it is a very valid question. One that probably does not fall into my portfolio, convener. As I said, it is the Government's intention to review the formula. As part of that review, those details will be teased out, I am sure. I do not have the detail of that. That does not fall into my remit. I think that we have the most patient member of the committee in Mary Evans, so I am now going to take in. No, thank you. It was just really in relation to some of the other things that you had mentioned today. You talked about the participatory budgeting and the charrette process too. I know from my own local authority that we rolled out the charrettes in most of the towns within the Angus council area anyway. I think that that has been a very positive process on the whole, in a good way to get people involved in the fact that it looks at external organisations and it is not just necessarily run by the council like some of those events have tended to be. I think that the main issue has been what we have already discussed. We get a lot of interested people at the start of that, but then it is what happens after, which has turned out to be the most frustrating thing. I know that that is down to local authorities themselves, and performance varies from local authority to local authority, but it is the ability to act on what comes out of the charrette process, which has been the frustrating thing for communities now. We talked about the local development plans. A lot of people would like to buy into the process, but how can you buy into it if you do not know what is happening in the first place and that whole communication issue? Again, that varies from local authority to local authority. A central part of that is the community planning partnerships. Performance varies between them, but in some areas it is still a top-down approach rather than the bottom-up that it is designed to be. I would really just like to tease out your thoughts on that and how you think that that process can be better developed and improved. At the moment, again, there are lots of communities who are desperate to buy into those things, but do not know what is going on and do not know how those decisions are being made. Thank you, convener. I thank Ms Evans for her questions of which there were many there. If I could start off by talking about the charrette process, I have to say that a number of years ago attending a charrette as a councillor, I went there a little bit cynical, it has to be said. I came out very, very enthused indeed as did the folks who attended that event. People felt that they were part of the process. It was extremely exciting for many folk because it was the first time that they felt part of the process. I hope that we can continue on in planning terms using charrettes and other community engagement tools to make sure that we do the right things in many areas. Participatory budgeting is something that is also, for me, very exciting. I talked about the Kenyan and Yellenshire situation. Recently, a number of the kind of schemes that have already happened across my desk came from the last lot of community choices fund money. While full analysis has not been done on many of those things yet, it seems that people themselves have felt really empowered being involved in some of these schemes. I think that that is really, really beneficial to all. Just last week, the new £2 million community choices fund was launched. It targeted particularly work in deprived areas. The fund's aim is to build on the support provided by the Scottish Government for participatory budgeting since 2014. That will open up opportunities for other public authorities, community organisations and community councils. I ask for all members of the committee and all members of the Parliament, as a whole, to advertise the community choices fund. We can circulate the details to you. I want to see communities' length and breadth of Scotland bidding to become part of that. Beyond that, my aim is to ensure that councils set that minimum 1 per cent target. I think that everybody will gain from that. My experience in my past life is a councillor where you have the community involved in shaping services, where you have the community involved in how money is spent, where you give them the decision making ability. The end is normally very, very good. You normally end up with a service that is much, much better because people know what they want. The thing for me is that, in terms of following the public pound, the public is often the best people to do it. If you have a community who wants to ensure that their priorities are met, they scrutinise to the instigree. I have probably rabited on too much in that. I have forgotten the last part of Ms Evans' question. Just about the community planning partnership. Oh, sorry. In terms of community planning partnerships, you have seen from the legacy document of the previous committee that we have done a large amount of work around about community planning partnerships. There are areas where community planning partnerships work extremely well. I am sure that you will find out as a committee that where they work well is where there is the bottom-up approach, where communities have a real say in what is happening in that area. Where they are influencing not only local authorities but the health board, the police and other agencies in their areas. I think that there are lessons to be learned because those community planning partnerships who are maybe doing less well, who are still taking the top-down approach, they should look to their compatriots who have taken the other route because they are working much, much better. I hope, convener, that we get to a point where that exporting of best practice, where that bottom-up from communities approach is happening everywhere. I think that that is beneficial to all, will be beneficial to all. I hope that, as a committee, it is not for me to tell you what to do, of course, but I hope that you will look at that legacy paper and the work around about that and you may do some follow-ups to that. That is a matter for you and not for me. Mary, do you want to come back in? It was not so much a supplementary but a different question, so I do not know if you do. A different question in a moment. Minister, you mentioned that it is important. We said that some community planning partnerships are performing well, some are doing fairly poorly and the ones that perform well have a bottom-up approach. Lest well, I think. Lest well, some should be doing far better than they should be doing. You mentioned that the less well community planning partnerships should be learning from the ones that are doing well. As minister for local government, do you feel that you have a role to make sure that best practice is shared and how would you intend to take that forward as minister? I always will encourage the exporting of best practice and I will do all that I possibly can to ensure that information is shared. I will be writing to all community planning partnerships in the next couple of days about an issue that arose around table meeting that I attended yesterday. Where we find best practice, and I am saying we, I am talking about me as the minister and the Government, but also you as a committee, I think that we have got an obligation to ensure that best practice is exported and shared across the board. I urge you not only to rely on the Government in this regard to export that best practice, but I urge you to look at the past work of this committee when it comes to community planning partnerships, when it comes to benchmarking to ensure that best practice goes right across community planning partnerships and right across local authorities. Of course this committee will do that, but it is this committee's responsibility to scrutinise the Scottish Government, minister responsible for making sure that that happens, one moment minister, and that would be yourself. It is great that you are having that round table event. If there is a need to review guidance and structures of community planning partnerships, are you prepared to do that? Will you come to this committee and give us more information on how you want to ensure that best practice is shared? As you will be aware, convener, the community empowerment act itself had a number of bits and pieces in that legislation dealing with community planning partnerships. As I said, the guidance around that is currently being consulted upon and worked up at this moment in time. Obviously, if I think that there is a necessity to ensure that something else needs to be done to get to the point of that information being shared and best practice being exported, then I will do so. On being where you sat, convener, I made that one of the things that was top of the pile, as far as I was concerned. I think that we have had in the past an inability in certain cases across the public sector to share best practice. I intend to ensure that best practice is shared. I think that, from my answer there, you have that assurance. We have the assurance that structures have to change or that statutory guidance has to be given to make sure that happens. As I said earlier, I am not particularly interested in structures and lines, but guidance is often good in dealing with those things. Guidance for the community empowerment act is still being worked up. If there needs to be any change to ensure that best practice is shared and exported, I will certainly look at that. It would be helpful if we were to write to the committee to give us some examples of best practice and how the Scottish Government is ensuring that it is shared. I think that that would give us a starting point as a committee to look at that. It is not a problem at all, convener. That is great. I want to look at local government funding. Can I have a wee supplementary on that? Yes, sure. I will just discuss it. Thanks, convener. First of all, I would say that trying to get the local print media to cover your £2 million fund is a lot easier said than done. In terms of community choice participation, the 1 per cent, that is very significant in my relatively small local authority area. It would be £3.5 million a year. When would you like to see that fully rolled out? I would like local authorities to move to that as soon as possible, Mr Gibson. I think that it is advantageous for local authorities to do that sooner rather than later. As I said, I have a strong belief that when the public is allowed to help shape services, we end up with better services at much less cost, which means that money can be reinvested in other front-line services. I encourage local authorities and other public sector bodies to move into participatory budgeting as soon as possible. We are going to move on to local government funding, but I know that Mary Evans said that you wish to raise another theme with the minister. It is a hugely important issue at the moment, and I know that it is a huge area of concern for local authorities. That is the impact of the referendum on the structural funds and the transnational programmes. I have a few questions within that. There is obviously the leader of the rural development programme and the distribution of those funds. Is it just a case of business as usual at the moment, or can you offer any reassurances to local government? I also believe that your constituency was the biggest beneficiary in the UK over the last funding period for the transnational programmes. That brings in hundreds of millions to our local economy and is largely dealt with through local government. I think that a lot of bids are going in for the art in the middle or in the midst of those bids for the transnational programmes at the moment, such as interreg and programmes like that. It is in terms of the structural funds, the transnational programmes, what you are thinking of and what reassurances we can offer to local government at the moment. I think that the impact of Friday's result has not filtered all of the way through yet. I wish the First Minister well in Europe today and hopefully we will reach a position where Scotland can remain within the European Union and that we don't have to worry too much about these things. Local government was allocated up to one third of the 1.3 billion EU structural funds that were coming to Scotland between 2014 and 2020. The total direct local government funding was somewhere in the region of 293 million euros, 230 million pounds. That included funding to invest in local regional businesses with growth potential. That was through the business gateway, some 40 million euros there, 50 million euros for the Seven Smart Cities Alliance and 138 million euros for employability work. As Ms Evans has mentioned, there are the European Offshore Wind Development Centre monies that came to Aberdeen. I am unable to give you in-depth answers at this moment in time but what I will do is write to the committee with all of the detail of all of the funding. Beyond that, we will keep the committee updated as things become more apparent in that sphere. I reiterate what I said. I hope that Scotland can remain within the European Union so none of that funding is put at risk. Andy Wightman I want to ask a question about fuel poverty and energy efficiency. It is a new topic. Is a new topic that I was taking in for? Thank you, convener. The upcoming November 2016 statutory deadline for meeting the objective of eradicating fuel poverty, set by the Housing Scotland Act 2001, is both likely to not be met and will obviously be focusing attention back on this very important topic. What plans do you have to try to make sure that we do not have a target set in the future that has not been met and to inject some urgency into the question of fuel poverty? The Government is committed to tackling fuel poverty and ensuring that everyone in Scotland lives in a warm home that is affordable to heat. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we take forward our commitment to introduce a warm homes bill. In addition to considering the recommendation from the expert commission's special working group on regulation of district heating, it would also be helpful for us to consider the recommendations from the Scottish Rural Fuel Poverty Task Force and the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group, who are both expected to report their findings by the end of the calendar year. Thank you. The target hasn't been met. We still have high levels of fuel poverty. I was asking about the urgency with which you intend to tackle this. Obviously, it is a cross-cutting issue across your portfolio, energy portfolio, climate change, etc. Do you have any idea about when you would wish now to eradicate fuel poverty? I met David Sigsworth just yesterday afternoon, who is the chair of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group. It is that group's view that, despite the Scottish Government's significant investment of more than £0.5 billion since 2009 to our fuel poverty and energy efficiency programme, the ambitious target to eradicate fuel poverty is that the Scottish Government's plans to eradicate fuel poverty by November will not be met, as Mr Wightman has said. Therefore, based on the advice that we have now received from experts across the sector, we must accept that fuel poverty will not be eradicated this year. We are committed to continuing our efforts in this area, and I will continue to work with the stakeholders to review the fuel poverty action plan, including the fuel poverty eradication target. This will include, as I said earlier, the recommendations from the Scottish Rural Fuel Poverty Task Force and Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group, who are both due to issue final reports on their findings by the end of the calendar year. They were challenging targets, and we would have been near meeting those targets if it had not been for the fact of huge increases in fuel bills. However, as I say, I will continue to work with stakeholders to review those matters. It is a priority for this Government. We are committed to continuing to eradicate fuel poverty. The opportunity to come back one final time is anything else to add. Elaine Smith Thank you very much, convener. Minister, it is just to take you back slightly to an issue around housing. I am sure that we all have noticed in recent years that we have seen an increase in people sleeping rough, not just in their cities but in other areas as well. For example, in one community, I have noticed this where previously it may not have been so much the case. My question is about this. Obviously, I take on board everything that you have said about housing. It is very important. What about the lack of accommodation for people who are sleeping rough? For example, it means that church groups are opening up church halls to try and help people. Do you have any plans to look at the issue and see whether help for accommodation for people sleeping rough can be increased? Scotland is some of the most progressive homelessness legislation in the world. Since 2012, all those assessed as being homeless through no thought of their own are entitled to settle the accommodation. This does not happen anywhere else in the UK. The Scottish Government has promoted housing options approach, which focuses on preventing homelessness in the first place. To do that, five local authority-led housing options hubs were created, which enabled all 32 local authorities to share learning and practice. The hubs have received £1 million of funding since 2010-11. We are providing £150,000 of on-going support for 2016-17. I take the deputy convener's point about rough sleepers. One of the first meetings that I had as minister was about homelessness. I am keen to ensure that the best possible actions are taken to ensure that we do our very best for people. Ms Dix was at that meeting, if I remember rightly. One of the things that is frustrating for me is that we often see local authority boundaries as a barrier to finding solutions for folk and good outcomes for folk. I am keen to see a cross-cutting approach to try and deal with homelessness as a whole. Maybe Ms Dix would like to come in and add a little bit more meat to the bone there. Mr Stewart, my apologies. Can we like in the second if that's okay minister? Elaine, do you have a specific follow-up on that? I just felt that it might be better to follow-up, minister, and then maybe Ms Dix could come in overall. I was a member of Parliament when that excellent homelessness legislation was passed. As a former homelessness officer, I have welcomed that legislation at the time. I welcome your commitment to that. I am pleased to hear it. The problem is that although people have legal rights, it is very difficult for people who are sleeping rough to get a lawyer. There are not enough legal centres that can help them. Even if people can get a letter from a law centre, taking that to the council, they might be accommodated. For a lot of councils, they do not seem to have the accommodation. That is a big problem. I wanted to add that further before Caroline Dix comes in. There are two main points there. I have to say that there is an ongoing discussion about people who sleep rough, who often, as you have pointed out, have multiple and complex needs. It is generally accepted that, in order to meet their needs, a range of services need to work together, including health, homelessness and social work. I am keen to ensure that that happens across the board. Beyond that, you mentioned supported accommodation. The worrying thing is that the UK Government is currently reviewing its funding. There is a major threat to some of the provision to be able to continue to be provided. We as a Government will continue to press the UK Government to ensure that supported accommodation is exempt from any changes. A review of supported accommodation commissioned by DWP and DCLG is due to be published. The UK Government will announce some mitigation measures to be used in the short term. Longer-term approaches will be subject to a formal consultation. I wonder if I could bring in Ms Dix now, who will add to my comments, convener? My direct area of responsibility is not homelessness, but we work quite closely with colleagues in looking at the supply of more homes across all local authority areas and making sure that the processes forget the links between, for example, the housing associations and councils to make sure that homeless applicants get access to those new homes. I know that there is consideration of, as the minister has said, about what is happening at the moment in terms of rough sleeping and how all the agencies are working together, so we can give the committee an update on the current discussions and what is happening with that. If you are happy, convener, I am quite happy to write to the committee with the updates of the work that is on-going at this moment in time. That would be very helpful, minister. I will discipline myself from asking a supplementary relation to what is going on around housing allocations policy. We have a question in the chamber this afternoon, so I will leave it until that point. Time is almost upon us. I am going to move to our final area. I am afraid, Mr Whiteman, and it is in relation to planning a couple of members who have indicated that they wish to raise that. I will maybe take Graham Simpson on that unless you have... I was going to ask something else, but we will go for planning. The previous indicated planning was something that you did not see. We will discuss reform of local government. It is a reasonably important topic for the local government committee. Members have lots of opportunities to raise that, and we are now at 11.21. They have not raised it. I have offered Mr Simpson an opportunity to a question that he may wish to ask about reform of local government, if he wishes to. We can do anything. Mr Gibson, if Mr Simpson is not bothered, why do I take you in and ask a question? I want to know how open the Scottish Government is to a bold and radical transformation of local government. I asked a First Minister's question about the timescale. I understand that you will be moving towards the end of the year. You will be aware that I have a resolution to the SNP's last conference on that. With local government budgets being under severe pressure and declining year-on-year funding pressures, how sustainable are 32 local authorities and 14 health boards? It will be more sensible to look at bringing health boards under democratic control by merging local authorities and health boards, allowing strategic decision making in terms of economic development, social work and health, while at the same time devolving issues such as planning, street cleaning, control of museums, street lighting etc. There is a lot of bureaucracy that people do not understand in local government, including community planning partnerships, health and social care integrations, joint integration boards. It will be a lot easier to look again at the issue. I will be a little bit longer to answer that question, minister. If there are any other questions that we do not get to today, because I am aware that time is pushing on, if the committee wants to write to me, I will respond accordingly. As I said previously, the public sector reform agenda sits in the Deputy First Minister's remit, but if I could say that the Government's aim is to transform our democratic landscape, protect and renew public services and refresh the relationship between citizens communities, councils and other public bodies. We will work with local authorities to review their roles and responsibilities and get more power into the hands of communities and we will consult on and introduce a decentralisation bill. A review of the roles and responsibilities of local government is in line with well-established public discussion that has gone on, including arguments that have been made by the 2014 COSLA commission on strengthening local democracy. The Government has already recognised that the right solutions for people may differ across Scotland's diverse communities, and we will take that into account. The key thing in all of this is consultation with the people that I mentioned earlier. One thing that you did not mention is whether health could perhaps be integrated with local government. For example, Fife Council and Fife Health Board have exactly the same coterminous boundaries. Surely it would make sense, given the joint integration, to have democratic control of that through one structure rather than two, for example. As I say, this area sits with Mr Swinney. I will pass on Mr Gibson's comments to the Deputy First Minister, although I am quite sure that the Deputy First Minister is already aware of Mr Gibson's views. That is very helpful, Minister, but it also raises an interesting point about the many things that have a direct impact on local government. Although some matters of reform will not be directly within your remit, it will have a direct impact on consequence of local government. I think that what Mr Gibson was saying there, and what I was saying in previous questioning, is to make sure that our local government minister or cabinet secretary is in the room co-producing what those reforms may look like, rather than having to deal with the impact of them. I suppose that that may be the point. As I have reiterated a number of times today, the First Minister has said that this will be a cross-cutting government. People will not work in isolation. I said already that it has been an eye-opener for me in terms of the amount of information that is shared and joint decision making that is going on in this Scottish Government. I am sure that that will continue. It is, of course, within the committee's right to call other ministers and cabinet secretaries to talk about their areas of responsibility. We have tried to tease out some answers on local government reform. You are clearly not ready to give those answers yet. I understand that, but you did say earlier in relation to education funding that you want to hand the funding directly to schools. If that is to happen, clearly that has a knock-on effect or could have a knock-on effect to council budgets, are you talking about taking schools out of council control and handing them to, in effect, yourself, if the Scottish Government is handing out the money? That does have an effect on local council budgets. As I said earlier, when I was giving the answers about the education funding situation, those things will be consulted upon. That falls within the remit of the Deputy First Minister in terms of the education aspects of all of this. Forgive me, convener. I do not know the remits of the committee that has been decided by the business bureau, but in terms of the public sector reform agenda, I am sure that you have the ability to call the Deputy First Minister in those regards if you so wish. Mr Gibson, I believe that council tax reform and finance of local governments is a pretty meaty issue that Andy Wightman wishes to raise as a final theme for this morning. This is just very brief. Obviously, we will have future conversations on this topic, but you mentioned in your opening remarks that you have not got responsibility for local government finance. That sits with the finance secretary, but it is correct that you have responsibility for local tax reform. All aspects of local government finance sit with the finance secretary. Are you therefore not in a position to give us any indication as to whether the current proposals of a council tax reform will be being brought forward? The Government's proposals will be brought forward, I am sure, by the finance secretary in the near future. Anything additional? There is nothing more that you would wish to ask on that theme. I see Mr Gibson quite key. To fellow committee members, if ever you do not make eye contact with me to ask a question, Mr Gibson will always fill that gap. Thank you, convener. It is a very precise question, very small one. This is something that all the councillors at this table will have been exercised by in the past. That is the issue of randomised ballots next year's local authority elections, because all the else being equal, if you and I were to stand in a completely new ward, for the same party, I would be elected rather than you, assuming that nobody knew who we were. They just looked at the party labels. In 2007, 92 per cent of people higher up the alphabet were selected over party colleagues. Surely the democratic way to do this next year, to avoid all this nonsense, is to randomise the ballot papers so that someone called Mr Simpson has exactly the same chance as Mr Doris, assuming that they were standing for the same party in the same area. I strike that from the record. Minister, could you answer that question? I have heard this argument before. Certainly there was some work done after the first STV elections in 2007, which showed that you were more likely to be elected if your name was further up the alphabet. That is not so much the case in 2011, if I remember rightly. Why is the SNP doing so many terrible ballots then? Mr Gibson, we will let you away with that one, but maybe through the chair in the future, I can remind the minister that he is not here to answer half of the Scottish National Party, but the Scottish Government? I have no idea why the SNP chose to use Robeson's rotation. I have to say that I have not looked in-depth at any of this. As I said earlier, it sounds like I am deflecting a lot today and I am not trying to, but all elections come under Mr Fitzpatrick as Minister for Parliamentary Business, as I said at the very beginning of the meeting. It might be best to address that question to him rather than to me, because he will be dealing with all aspects of elections. My colleague Elaine Smith has a question, which I am sure he will not deflect, but he will be very keen to answer. Thank you, convener, and it is a supplementary to the point that Mr Gibson raised. I note that you said that Mr Fitzpatrick is responsible for the boundary issues, but given that it affects your remit with 10 months to go to local government elections, do you have any idea, minister, when the Scottish Government will be announcing the changes to the boundaries? I do not have an indication of timescale, but I will ask Mr Fitzpatrick to write to the committee to give an indication. Minister, what time is upon us? Can I thank yourself and your colleagues for coming along and giving evidence to the committee this morning? We are very keen to work in partnership with yourself and your officials in the best interests of the electorate that we all wish to do a job for. We will be considering our work programme through the course of the summer. I am sure that we will have you back in the very near future, but today was really about getting general themes aired and getting to know you as a minister and getting to know us as a committee, and I am sure that we will have a constructive relationship going forward. I am happy to give you any additional or final comments that you might wish to put on the record before we move into private session. I do not have much more to say other than to wish you all the very best on this committee. I enjoyed serving on the predecessor committee. I hope that you enjoy your work and your scrutiny as much as I did. I thank all of you for coming along. Before we move into private session, can I put the following on the record for the benefit of members and anyone listening out with this place? That understanding order rule 12.6.2, this committee will require to appoint an EU reporter, but this decision will be put to members after the summer recess. Just in case anyone outside is watching and saying that this committee has not appointed an EU reporter yet, we most definitely will do it. We think that it is crucial that we continue to do that and that we will make that appointment after the summer recess. With that, we now move into private session, as agreed on 15 June.