I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting of the local government and communities committee in 2019 and remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones. Gened item 1 is consideration of whether to take a gened item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? That's agreed, thank you. Gened item 2, the committee will take evidence in alcohol licensing in Scotland. This session was previously delayed due to a cabinet reshuffle last year and I welcome the minister for community safety, Ash Denham, who now has lead portfolio responsibility for alcohol licensing. I also welcome Peter Reid, team leader licensing, criminal law practice and licensing unit at the Scottish Government accompanying the minister today. I invite the minister to make any opening remarks. Thank you, convener. Yes, just briefly. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear this morning to discuss alcohol licensing. I understand that the committee wants to discuss community involvement in the alcohol licensing process and other issues related to licensing that were raised. I know that the committee meeting was held last year. As members will know, today's session had been due to take place last year with then Cabinet Secretary for Justice Michael Matheson. He was going to give evidence at that time but, as a result of the reshuffle, that appearance was postponed. As a minister for community safety, that portfolio responsibility has now been passed to the minister so that comes under myself. It may be helpful if I may provide a quick overview of the regime. As members will be aware, the main piece of legislation that controls the sale of alcohol in Scotland is the Licensing Scotland Act of 2005, which came into full effect in late 2009. That has since been added to further by both primary and secondary legislation. The most recent piece of primary legislation to make changes to the alcohol licensing regime is the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Act of 2015. Meanwhile, the day-to-day responsibility for administration of the alcohol licensing regime rests with licensing boards. The boards are made up of elected councillors from relevant councils, but they are independent public bodies separate from the local authority. All boards have a wide discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements according to local needs and circumstances and with their own legal advice. The key strategic role of a board is the preparation of the licensing policy statement for its area. Within that policy statement, there will be an over-provision assessment, which states whether the board considers there to be over-provision of licence premises in its area. It is important to emphasise that licensing boards have responsibility for individual licensing decisions. Those are not issues that the Scottish Government intervenes in. The role of the local licensing forum, which I know was a topic that came up in the last meeting, is to keep under review the operation of the licensing system in the area and to give advice and recommendations to the board. I am sure that we will discuss that further today. I know that there are a number of other issues that the committee might want to raise, and I am happy to take any questions on that. Thank you very much, minister. I will go straight to questions and Annabelle Ewing. Thank you very much. Good morning, minister. Picking up on the issue of the local licensing forums, I understand that there is a consultation out at the moment on the draft revised guidance for licensing boards. Within that consultation, the role of local licensing forums will be looked at. In that regard, what does the minister see as the possible outcome with regard to that discussion? What role should the local licensing forums be playing? I think that there is a feeling that there is a bit of confusion about what the role is. Indeed, whether perhaps the role could be strengthened in various respects, but perhaps the minister could give her initial thoughts on that. Obviously, the role of the forum is to keep a review of the operation of the licensing system in the area, so that is their function, and to put forward advice and recommendations to the board. In my view, a local licensing forum does have a vital role to play in that. Obviously, it is representing different communities of interests and ensuring that a number of views are put forward to the board that they are considered and debated. They are very important. It is also good if forums can try to be as proactive as possible and try to get a diversity of people to attend those meetings so that they get that breadth of views. There is some very good practice that the committee will have seen and the evidence that the committee took last year. The one that struck me was that one of the forums had gone out to speak to modern study students in a local high school, and they had taken suggestions from them about a local event that was going to be happening and found that quite useful. I think that there is evidence of really good practice of forums working really well. Obviously, in other areas, there are examples where forums are not working so well. To pick up on your question, I think that that is where the guidance would come into play. Obviously, the guidance that we are consulting on at the moment. My officials have been working with a number of stakeholders over the past few months to get as much engagement as possible and as much input into improving the guidance to make it as clear and as helpful as possible. There will certainly be a part of that, which will be for boards in how they can support forums better and sharing that good practice. I will ask Peter to give a little bit more colour on that. Thank you very much. The role of the licensing forums is set out in the legislation, and that is not due for change anytime soon. We are not working on another licensing bill at the moment. I would make the point that boards vary enormously in size and resources. There are options available to the very large boards to be proactive and do a lot of work, whereas there are some very small boards with less than 100 premises licences under its responsibility. The resources that are available to some of the boards are a lot less, so nationally, we understand that there is going to be a variety of levels of practice and engagement that is possible and appropriate at local authority level. The statutory guidance that we are working on at the moment includes a chapter related to licensing forums encouraging good practice and giving examples. As the guidance has to reflect the underlying legislation, the guidance at the moment is guidance for licensing boards. It could be that there is scope for other guidance for other audiences. That might be one of the things that we draw from the consultation responses and it is something that we would be happy to look at. We would like to see forums operating effectively. We see that there is good practice and we would like to encourage local authorities to adopt good practice. Thank you for that. In terms of the views that the committee had heard, its suggestions included training perhaps for forum members, access to budget, better guidance, which the Government is looking at and perhaps even a national support body. Are those issues actively under consideration? I should admit that I have been active in my community council for the past more than a decade. I also attend my local licensing forum as an ad hoc member. I have a degree of familiarity with what happens on the ground.  They can unfortunately be quite reliant on the usual suspects, people that are retired or people that are involved in quite a lot of groups. It is genuinely difficult to bring more folk in. Certainly, we would be happy to consider things that work. I think that the best source of that will be at local authorities that actually have successful forums and then they can inform on what seems to work well in their area. I think that, nationally, some of those ideas may not be fully appropriate. I do not think that mandatory training for forum members for my engagement would really encourage more people to attend, but I think that more support and making it easier and more meaningful when they are there might make more difference. However, the local authorities on the ground will have much work. They will have plenty of experience on what works in local engagement. When is the consultation to come to an end? It is three months consultation. We would encourage people who have the usual mist to get involved and give us their feedback. I think that that is important to make a call for all the people who are watching our proceedings, as we speak. In terms of, can we do just one last line? I hear what he said and the consultation is on-going and that is all good and well. I would be concerned that in the whole process, in Fife, for example, there is a very successful organisation, the Fife Alcohol Support Service, which has celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. It provides front-line counselling. It is on the front line. It will have lots of views about issues that are being dealt with day and daily. What is the possibility of having a system whereby organisations like the Fife Alcohol Support Service can be involved? They will have a lot to say. I sense that we are getting on to public health, which is not the minister's direct responsibility, but how could that work so that we use the expertise on the ground? They could certainly be members of the forum. That would be a useful way for that to go forward. Obviously, that expertise can then be given, as I spoke earlier, about advice and recommendations being given on to the board. That would certainly be a way to do that. You mentioned it, Mr Reid, the difficulty of getting people to attend some of these forums. I certainly know from my experience of having sat on a licensing board that the forum in the area that I was in was really not very successful. I hardly ever met it, and it was the usual suspects. I felt that there was a disconnect between the board and the forum because of those issues, because there were not many people.  You might have good practice in some places, but there will be very bad practice elsewhere. I do not know what your reflections are on that. I will let Peach come in in a moment, but that is the point of updating the guidance. In areas where we have seen really good practice, for instance, the forums have a plan for the year. They decide what they are going to look into. It is clearly engaging and useful for the people who are involved. It provides good advice and recommendations to the board, and there is a good linkage between the two. That is something that we would like to replicate across the country. In the guidance, we will be putting in examples of that so that we can try to share that good practice across the whole of Scotland. Coming back, you make an interesting point that I prompt some thoughts with me that perhaps certainly the licensing forum that I attend has quarterly meetings at the local council headquarters that have an agenda, a chair and a quite formal. It might well be that in the modern age that model of engagement is not particularly attractive to a lot of people. Clearly it is not. It may be that we need to be thinking a bit more creatively about what might meaningfully bring people in, because certainly those are issues that a lot of people have a lot of opinions on and would like to engage with. There is always scope for thinking to move on and other approaches to be adopted. One of the difficulties that we certainly had was trying to get young people interested, because clearly they should be, but you cannot force them to be. You have to make it interesting. At the moment it is just not. Most members of the public will have no idea what the board does, but they will certainly have no idea what the forum does. There is a challenge there. The other problem that we had—I am sorry to go on, convener, but I am just talking from experience— was that the health board was not really engaged and should have been. I do not know if you have done any research across the country to see levels of engagement of different groups in those forums. I am afraid that we have not got down to that level of detail. It may be something alcohol-focused Scotland has looked at. It could engage quite closely with the forums. On a forum, there should be somebody nominated from the health board, so that is part of the membership that should be made up. I am hearing what you are saying. I think that that came through in the evidence from last year, that some of the people giving evidence said that they found that the meetings were held in the council chambers and that it was quite intimidating for lay people who are not used to this kind of environment. They felt that going along with that and speaking up was a bit off-putting for them. I think that that is something to think about how to make it informal, welcoming so that people can come in. I will go back to your point about young people. Obviously, I spoke about that a little before. The issue is that, rather than waiting for young people to come to them, maybe you have to go to the young people, maybe you have to engage with modern-studied teachers in the locality and so on and see that that is a way to capture the views of young people. However, I agree with you that I can see that there is some difficulty in trying to attract young people to these things. Is there a danger that these forums are seen more as a tick box exercise to say that we are engaging? If you look at the evaluation that was done by Messas, which was monitored in the evaluation strategic group in 2013, they highlighted structural issues with local licensing forums. They said that those include a lack of power and a lack of clarity about the role. You have said that there is no intention to bring forward legislation, but if there is a lack of clarity about the role and the lack of powers that you have, what if people do not get that, are they a tick box exercise? No, I do not think that they are, but I think that we have covered already in this session that they are working really well in some areas and they are not working so well in others. As a Government, that is something that we can try to give as much help and support with that and we are happy to do that. Officials have engaged with all the boards and offered them any support that they think would be useful. None of them have taken the Government up on that, so the Government is happy to give that support advice, clarity and clearly our guidance will do that as well. I think that that is in relation to the personal licence hold issue rather than the forums, but it is certainly in relation to engaging with licensing boards. I attend the quarterly meeting of the local licensing, so our networking group for local licensing solicitors and hear views and provide updates to them, so I am well engaged with them and aware of the good work that they do and take on board the concerns that they raise. I remain happy to do that. I think that it would be interesting when you keep talking about examples of best practice, it would be interesting to see further information on that. The boards are quasi-judicial, I have never been to a licensing board but I know that there are lots of lawyers that go to them and there is in-depth training of members of the licensing board because they are quasi-judicial, so to what extent would forums have any power over them? If you take one example, the over-provision that came in 2015, when that legislation came in, it was clear that there was clear correlation between high-lave areas of deprivation and poverty and over-provision of alcohol sales outlets. Is there examples where those forums have been able to look at that kind of detail and have any influence on it? That is the sort of thing that we would expect the board to engage with, I cannot remember off the top of my head whether it is a statutory responsibility, but I certainly would expect the board to engage directly with the forum. I think that the board is also obliged to have an annual meeting with members of the forum as well. As with any of those, although we are talking about a board having a quasi-judicial role, they have a role in relation to individual applications and reviews, and they also have a more strategic role, which is linked to the licensing policy statement and over-provision, as you have mentioned. That is where having the resource of the forum, which brings in a broad mix of police, NHS communities and trade, gives the board a natural resource, a hint of land, to fall back on and seek views and challenge from. That is a useful and valuable role for the forum. I would imagine that a board might well find that useful in themselves, just to test out their ideas and thinking. Seeing those in front of a forum and seeing the reactions that the forum has to those ideas and approaches would find that invigorating and useful as well. I think that most of us value engagement in the views of others. I think that it would be interesting if the committee was able to get the best practice, but also if we were able to get the data in terms of how legislation, such as the over-provision powers, is being used and what linkage there is. We are licensing forums around that, so we can see in practice how those things are working. Committee witnesses agreed that support from local authorities, particularly in the form of staff time, was an important factor for successful forums. Again, we see that those services within local authorities are under massive financial pressure. Do you think that there is the capacity there to be able to support those forums to have a meaningful role where they have some powers and there is clarity about the role? Obviously, it is for the local authority to support the boards and the forums, but we are aware that resourcing can be a challenge for boards. That is why we are about to consult shortly on the occasional licence fee. The fee for that at the moment is £10. I think that it has been at that level for quite some time now. If we consult on that and decide to raise that, that could be an important source of revenue, which might lead to better resourcing. I wonder what local authority staff, licensing staff, actually think of the forums. Are they ticked blocks? There is a question for them, but... Anyway, convener. Thank you very much. At the discussion that we had in May last year, there was some discussion and concern expressed around the overprovision provisions. It was originally intended to focus on public order, but it was very unclear if the law supported the expansion of those powers to deal with public health issues. It has been drawn to our attention and has proved fraught with legal difficulty. What is the view of the Government on whether overprovision powers should be able to deal with public health and whether the law is in a fit state in fact to do that? There are two portfolios, because this comes under justice and then you have the public health aspect. We do, as a Government, recognise that at times you need to work between portfolios. You cannot work with things in a silo. Clearly, the Scottish Government has been working quite hard to reduce alcohol-related harm, and I am thinking of things such as minimum unit pricing and multi-biz and that kind of thing. Obviously, I have seen the report that AFS brought out in May last year where it was drawing a link between overprovision and crime and other types of harm. It is something that the Government is definitely looking at. In terms of overprovision, as it stands with the licensing regime, the powers are there for the board to determine. They obviously had to put a statement about levels of overprovision, and it is up to them to decide whether there is overprovision in their area, and then they can act on that. Obviously, they need to be robustly evidenced. Peter will give a bit more detail, but there are many examples where boards have used those powers quite successfully. I will let Peter give a bit more detail. Overprovision is one of those areas that is always going to be quite fraught. It is always going to be open to debate, and there are always going to be different opinions. We recognise that, and we know that it is going to be difficult. We are doing what we can to support boards in making a finding of overprovision, if that is what they want to do. The guidance, as we have already mentioned, has been updated substantially. There has been a lot of legal discussion on this to try to make it more straightforward on the process and easier for boards to make use of. That will, hopefully, help them with the process, which is often the stumbling block, which can, unfortunately, be a stumbling block where a board wants to do something and stumbles with the process. We hope that the guidance will make that a lot easier. We have also, in the 2015 act, been mindful of concerns raised in particular by alcohol-focused Scotland in relation to overprovision. They made a number of good points that we have taken forward in the 2015 act. In relation to overprovision, there was one in relation to making it absolutely clear that a board could determine that the entire board area was a locality for the purposes of overprovision. That would then make it a lot easier for a board to make use of public health evidence, which is generally available for a much larger area. It would be challenging to find public health evidence for Salkie Hall Street. Finding public health evidence for South Lanarkshire as a whole would be a lot more straightforward. Making it absolutely clear in the legislation that a board could determine that the entire board area was a locality for the purposes of overprovision makes using public health data and finding overprovision on public health grounds a lot more straightforward to further it and would certainly encourage them to do so. So, are you saying therefore that it is clear in law that public health criteria over a licensing board area can be used as a reason for restricting alcohol licensing? It can be considered as part of the evidence that the board can consider, yes. And are you confident that the legal framework within which such decisions would be made is watertight in that regard? I do not think that we could ever promise that the legal framework... Because that is the problem that has been highlighted, is that it is not clear whether you can use public health grounds, you can use the overprovision provisions of the act to tackle public health questions. I think that it is one of the public health representatives, one of the five underlying objectives within the act, and boards certainly have used public health arguments in the past and I expect them to continue to do so. That is the purpose of updating the guidance to provide as much clarity, help and support to boards so that they are able to make those decisions and to make it clear to them. What another issue that has been raised has been the need to establish a dependable causal link between harm and overprovision and the concern that that is a barrier to using overprovision to address public health concerns. What are your views? I think that that is an issue that has been a considerable legal debate, and certainly in developing the guidance, there was a considerable legal debate on what exactly some of those terms meant, like dependable causal link and rebuttable presumption, and we have tried to make those as clear as we can in the guidance in order to help boards in their understanding of how it works. There was considerable discussion on this among lawyers. I am not a lawyer myself, but I think that my take on it was that the causal link is a matter of law, that there has to be some form of causal link. However, within the guidance, we have tried to make it clear how boards can evidence that causal link in preparing their overprovision assessment, and the standard is on the balance of probabilities. We do not feel that that is an insurmountable barrier to a board arriving at an overprovision assessment. It is a matter of the law. There is no current plan to change the law in that area, but we would be interested in the committee's views on that, and we would take that into consideration. We will keep it under review. However, if the evidence is that this is a complicated area of law, which is that some dispute guidance can help people to give them a bit more confidence, perhaps in reaching decisions, but it is not going to change the underlying tensions that are there. The Government has got a good track record continuing to try to deal with public health concerns around alcohol. It is pretty clear to me that licensing has to be one of the tools that one uses to address public health concerns. If it can be shown that this remains an area of legal dispute, will the Government move to change the law to make it beyond doubt that overprovision can be used to tackle public health questions? I think that overprovision can be used to tackle public health concerns. You have latched on to a view that is expressed by a stakeholder, but I do not think that my feeling is that that has not widely held to you. Many boards have successfully demonstrated that there is overprovision and that they have successfully defended that in the courts. However, as I said, the updated guidance will hopefully help with that, and it will give more clarity around that. If that is something that we feel is on-going and there is a problem, we are keeping this under review and we will look at it as a Government. The boards have already found that the overprovision that they can use is just a case of some have used it better than others, and that is how they have found in their favour. It is not really changing the law that you would think would be required at this date. Kenny, you wanted to come. Yes, thank you very much, convener. Online and out-of-town alcohol sales, out-of-town supermarket alcohol sales, contribute certainly to overconsumption. I think that supermarket sales would certainly contribute to overprovision, so I am just wondering how the Scottish Government licensing boards are able to tackle those issues. Obviously, we know that there is a changing trend, but it is not there about how people buy and consume alcohol. We are seeing that. As part of the alcohol framework of 2018, there is Government work being undertaken to understand the online sales and how that is interacting with what we are looking at in that area, but I will let Peter explain it from the licensing perspective. Premises that sell alcohol will have a premises licence, so those will be considered by a board in the normal run of things. As you allude, there was a growing trend towards the online sale of alcohol. The minister said that there is research being carried out, and we will consider the findings of that. It is not an easy issue as to what you might do, but we certainly will be interested in the views on it. You might have an area where there are not many off-sales in the area of outlets, but those people can drive to a supermarket a couple of miles away. Those could be the people who are more likely to buy online, so they end up getting a distorted picture of where alcohol has been consumed. I am just wondering if there is any research going into that, so that we can get a more accurate picture of alcohol consumption in Scotland. That has been covered under the research that has been done under the alcohol framework, but that has been done by public health colleagues. Excellent. Last year, it became a requirement for licence boards to produce annual function reports, which can be used by communities to scrutinise their work. Those are obviously very quick, considerably, in terms of their content and format. I am just wondering if there is any commitment from the Government to produce practice guidance to kind of aid this function, perhaps to ensure best practice and standardisation. Yes. Obviously, we have seen them and they seem to be varying from four pages in length to 358 pages in length. It is clear that there is quite a bit of diversity there, but it is obviously clear that we will reflect different local areas. Some will have many premises and some will not, so perhaps that plays into it. My officials have just received an analysis on the report a few days ago, so we are studying that, the one from our call for focus Scotland about the annual function reports. I think that the other thing that we need to be aware of is that we do not want to unduly burden them as well. We need to make sure that what we are asking them to do is useful and appropriate. We are looking into that, and we do expect that the guidance will again address issues around that and to try to make sure that those reports are... We do not want them to be completely standardised. We obviously want to give them... They can write them in the way that they want, but we obviously want them to be useful to add clarity to the issue as well. I will let Peter add a little bit more to that. In terms of the function reports, that was one of two additional reporting requirements brought in by the 2015 act. The previous one was an income and expenditure report. What we did with the income and expenditure report was that we met in Ffalyon formally with boards and had a discussion about what might be useful for inclusion in those reports and what they might look like. I think that we might have got an example from a board that had done one and shared that and did a minute of the meeting and shared that with local authority, with the boards themselves, for them to provide them a bit of a steer when they provided the income and expenditure reports. When the function report was coming in, we spoke to the board solicitors again. The feedback that we got from them was that that fairly light touch approach at the beginning in terms of the income and expenditure reports had worked well and they would welcome a similar approach for the annual function support. We did some light engagement with the local authority's boards and with Alcohol Focused Scotland, which is alluded to in the report that Alcohol Focused Scotland did. A minute of that was circulated to the boards to help inform them. I think that the fact that now boards have prepared a first function report so that they will be able to see other boards' functions report and the overarching analysis that EFS has done, I think that that will help inform improvements in doing those reports. I think that they will hopefully pick up good examples from elsewhere and reflect on what has probably worked better not so well within their own reports. As an annual report, I do not think that we would necessarily be rushing immediately to do a review. I think that a few reports down the line would be a far more appropriate stage to look at them. I just want to nip back to the provision, if we can. We had a written submission from Alcohol Focused Scotland, which you hopefully have seen. They refer to the draft guidance on this. If we can just read you what they say and you can respond to it. This document has no statutory authority and, in EFS's view, is not fit for purpose. The poor drafting risks exacerbating the existing confusion and ambiguity that the update was intended to address, particularly in relation to the crucial section on overprovision. What would your response be to those comments? I will let you down to that one. I will take you back a bit here to provide a bit of context around this. The work on updating statutory guidance has been very substantial undertaking. We started it in 2017. We have been working with a wider range of stakeholders. The Institute of Licensing Council has brought together a lot of stakeholders, including Alcohol Focused Scotland, to work on it. We have got the work on the guidance starting in 2017. In parallel, there was a revised requirement in relation to the licensing policy statements. The key strategic document for licensing boards in the past were prepared every three years, but there was a recommendation by EFS among others that it did not work too well and that it would be much better to more closely align the licensing policy statements as strategic documents with the duration of the licensing board that owned them. That is what we did in the 2015 act. The 2015 act gave the new board 18 months to settle down and then prepare a new licensing policy statement so that it felt ownership of it. That is reasonable enough, but the result of that was that that gave a November 2018 deadline for licensing policy statements to be published. We were not going to have the guidance finished by then. When speaking to licensing board clerks, they were saying that they were worried that the guidance would completely contradict the work that they had been doing on developing the licensing policy statements. They were not sure whether they should be doing it and they think that they would be undermined. We prioritised doing work on the relevant chapters in relation to overprovision and licensing policy statements to get a workable draft. That was shared informally with stakeholders, including the licensing boards, to give them the reassurance that they should carry on on an important work that they were doing on the licensing policy statements due for publication in November 2018. The impression that I got was that they were reassured. They carried on, they published those documents. It would have been unfortunate to lose the publication of those 2018 licensing policy statements for the sake of putting the time into doing the guidance properly. I think that the boards were reassured by what they saw that they produced the licensing policy statements. It was not an ideal situation, but you were dealing with change and I think that we came up with the best compromise we could. I am not sure whether you are agreeing on disagreeing with them, because they described that the guidance does not fit for purpose, so it is quite strong. I think that alcohol-focused Scotland has a particular set of views and they are robust in expressing those. We have talked this morning about the process and the guidance that has been put in place and also the provision. When it comes to local residents, they find it quite difficult sometimes to understand how they become involved in the whole process, because there is a lack of understanding about how they can participate and what they can do. They live sometimes within that environment that has detrimental effects to them or they see what is happening, but they find it quite a minefield to go through to see how they can support themselves and how they can ensure that their views are expressed. Do you think that more can be done in the current system to ensure that local residents can express their views in a more pronounced way? There is always more that can be done, but there are lots of opportunities for local residents to express their views already. The licensing regime has that baked into it, if you like. Board members can engage and do their policy statement. Residents can feed into their local licensing forum and can attend meetings of the board. They can speak to their local councillors who sit on the boards. I take your point that sometimes people may not have the awareness of that, but that facility is there and people can take advantage of it. You have touched on the role of the councillor and the community councillor as you talked about attending that yourself. They are seen as their representatives to express their views and their opinions, but there seems to still be some barriers as to how that can be achieved. If you have gone to a licensing meeting and seen how it performs, it looks a little bit more of a court environment and it has some flavour to that. Individuals do not see how they get the chance to participate in that. The applicant may well have representation and there may well be some discussion from the forum or from interested parties about how that can take place. Do you think that there is a bigger role for councillors and the community councils in ensuring that those roles and pupils can get the opportunity to express their views and opinions? Community councils are a statutory consultee for premises licence, so we would always encourage them to put forward their views in that case. Individuals can, if they are worried about premises near them, request them to be reviewed. There are lots of mechanisms and ways that people can engage, but I will ask if Peter has any more detail on that. I will also make mention of the licensing standards officers. They are a role under statute and they have a role to provide support and advice to mediate. The messas report that was touched on earlier reported very favourably on the licensing standards officers and the positive impact that they have. I am a bit out and about a lot and I have really said them a bad word about them. I hear nothing but praise for their efforts. I think that they have a role to play and a very vital role in ensuring that some of that information is processed back and forward from the council or from the licensed forum or individuals themselves to ensure that they have that participation and that the community feel involved. However, witnesses have come back to us when we were discussing this in the past, talked about the lack of understanding of the licensing system and the barriers that were put up to participation. What do the Scottish Government think they can do to increase that understanding? There is still a barrier there. Many of the witnesses who have had talked about that barrier talk about not being able to process it. There has to be something more that needs to be done to ensure that that is the case. Obviously, we do not want there to be barriers to people participating. Clearly, we want to encourage community engagement and that is why we have the local forums and so on. It is all designed around making sure that we get a diversity of views in that can then feed into the board. I know that we keep talking about it but that is an issue that I will ask Peter to confirm. Is that going to be covered in the guidance as well? The guidance is primarily addressed in the licensing boards. I heard the suggestion the other day that there might be value in advice for people who want to make objections. I do not think that we would have any problem with the Scottish Government preparing some advice short. Obviously, if you write advice guidance for boards, that is written in a certain style and it is not going to be as accessible. For somebody who is maybe concerned about a premises opening next door to them and usins, they will want to know if I wanted to make an objection about what sort of points I would want to get across. I think that, within Government, we could prepare something and publish that on the website in a jump to the guidance. That would certainly help, because, as I say, some people see it a bit of a minefield because it is quite remote and it is quite legal and they do not feel that they have got the qualifications or the understanding. By giving them some kind of template or some kind of role to say that these would be expected or that these are the areas that might be covered, I think that we would give them more confidence in the system. That is what we want. We want people to have more confidence in the system. I take the member's point on that. I think that we would be happy to look into that and see if there is something that we could publish that would be helpful in that area. I think that it would be fair to say that most people are not lying in their beds at night worrying about the local licensing policy. However, where people have an issue, and that is where I would agree entirely with your view that the licensing standards officers, my experience has always been that they do do a good job and people want to know that where there is issues, they are able to respond to them. Has the Government done that, or would it consider having a look at the resources that are available within licensing boards? That clearly impacts—we can talk all day about those issues, but if the capacity does not exist within the local authorities to be able to respond to public concerns, is that something that the Government either has been looking at, or is it something that you would be prepared to do so that we as a committee could have a look at that? We are looking at that, but I will get Peter to give you the detail on that. Obviously, resources for boards are a perennial concern. We did undertake some work a while ago on looking at the board fee levels in relation to licensing. However, we faced a stumbling block in that it was difficult to get enough information to really form views as to whether the fee levels were appropriate. That is why in the 2015 act we set up the requirement to have an income and expenditure report, which meant that we were getting information from across boards in Scotland on the levels of income and expenditure that they had. As already mentioned, we intend to look at whether the occasional fee is set at an appropriate level coming up. Further to that, we intend to look more properly at the overall levels of fees and expenditures within boards across Scotland, and whether that should inform a change to the existing fee structure. Obviously, we would need to balance the interests of people who might apply for a licence at a certain stage that it would not be set at a punitive or distorting effect, but it would similarly ensure that boards had appropriate resources to carry out their functions properly. I have just got a couple of points. One was that you talked about the LSOs early on and how well respected their jobs have been. We are hearing some evidence that the role is under some pressure. Could you tell us what the Scottish Government is doing to help local authorities to recognise the value and provide adequate staff resources in this area? Obviously, the licensing act of 2005 requires the local authorities to appoint at least one LSO in their area. I will just give you the data that the Scottish Government has got at the moment. The numbers have fallen from 63.6 in 2011-12 to 59, or just over 59 in 2017-18. We are hearing the same thing that concerns that LSOs are being expected to cover additional duties. For example, the recently created Civic Licensing Standards officer role, but we will keep that under review. If we can get some more data, we would be happy to share that with the committee. That would be very helpful. I would like to go back to the community area. The licensing boards for understandable reasons are currently out with the community planning and council strategic planning frameworks. That helps with their independence, but it makes it difficult to connect alcohol licensing to the other community initiatives. Do you think that there is any benefit in the licensing boards being required to be more connected to community planning work? I mean, there's nothing to stop boards going beyond the current laid-down minimum requirements when they undertake that engagement. Obviously, when they're developing the licensing policy statement, that does present a really good timely opportunity to engage as widely as possible. Many boards do that, but if the committee—I can see the committee's got a strong interest in this—and if the committee has recommendations particularly around this, suggestions for change and how that might be taken forward, I'd be very happy to look at that. I mean, community planning partnerships are meant to be the sort of hub where everybody gets together, and I think it would be important that something is important, as this is feeding into the community planning partnerships, but it's something that the committee can consider at a later stage. Does anybody else have any other questions? Nope. In that case, can I thank the minister and Mr Reid very much for their attendance? Thank you. In agenda item 3, the committee will consider the fuel poverty, target definition and strategy. Scotland Bill is stage 2, and I welcome Kevin Stewart, minister for local government, housing and planning, and his officials. Some non-committee members have lodged amendments that may be taken today and are likely to be in attendance later this morning. At introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required for this bill. Under roll 9126C, the Presiding Officer determined that the cost associated with amendments 48 and 62 would each and themselves exceed the current threshold for a bill to require a financial resolution. Therefore, in terms of stage 2 proceedings, amendment 48 and 62 may be debated but may not be agreed to in the absence of a financial resolution. The Presiding Officer has also ruled that amendments 93, 31, 81, 84, 82 and 85 are cost bearing amendments. However, the potential cumulative cost of these amendments would not require a financial resolution. As such, amendments 93, 31, 81, 84, 82 and 85 and any amendments consequential on those amendments will be debated and the questions put on them as per normal in stage 2 proceedings. I call amendment 53 in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I bring members' attention to the eight pre-emptions in this group as shown in the groupings. Alec Rowley, to move amendment 53 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In moving the amendment, I would say that the purpose of this amendment is to move the fuel poverty target from 2040 to 2032. In doing so, my view is that the 2040 target is not ambitious enough and that we need to be more ambitious to drive the fuel poverty objectives of Government. I think that taking evidence in this bill, a number of members commented on the fact that, since they have been here, indeed, and since the inception of this Parliament, there has been targets set and missed for tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. That in itself should be a lesson to all of us that we have to be more ambitious. Many of those who have the broadest experience of how to tackle fuel poverty and those who work directly with those experiencing fuel poverty have told us this. For example, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal and Islands Housing Association Forum, Inclusion Scotland, East Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership and the existing Homes Alliance have all said that we need to be more ambitious. Norman Kerr from Energy Action Scotland told us that the 2040 target condemns another generation to fuel poverty. We also hear that the 2032 target is more in line with the energy efficiency targets and the climate change bill. It is important that we have joined up Government if we are to succeed in achieving the objective that we all share around this table, which is to rid Scotland off the blight of fuel poverty. This is all contingent on a strong plan and adequate funding, and we support the Government putting forward an ambitious and well-funded strategy. We believe that, by bringing this target forward, that would help us to drive that strategy. A number of amendments that I am bringing forward will help to facilitate that. I have also submitted an amendment that gives the advisory panel the power to recommend moving the target if we discover that, even under the best circumstances, the target cannot be met. That is not about setting up targets to fail. It is about having the best possible statutory structures in place to prevent people from both the short and long-term harm associated with fuel poverty. I accept, convener, during giving evidence that there are a number of drivers of fuel poverty that are not under the control of the Scottish Government and this Parliament. That said, however, that there are drivers that are and that we are less ambitious in tackling. I want to briefly give the examples. Last week, I held an advice surgery in Blingary in Fife, and a lady came up to me who I have actually corresponded with the minister before on in terms of her house and the lack of insulation. Her problem is a problem that many people in Scotland come across where the funding that is available through the Gryffin grants is not enough to be able to pay for the type insulation, so steel-framed houses, stewart houses, wooden-framed houses, there are not enough resources there. In terms of that driverly poverty, we are not doing enough and we need to be able to do more. The lady a few months ago, and again I have corresponded with the minister and with the local authority, who brought photos along for our timber-framed house. You could see where it had been raining and where the heaters were in the inside because on the outside those parts of the timber frame were dry, so the heat is just pouring out of the house. Now there are loads of houses like that, though that is a driverly poverty that surely we need to be ambitious about. Imagine me going back to those people and telling them that we have set a target for 2040. I think that the people of Scotland will not be impressed by a target of 2040. As I said, there has to be a clear strategy and there has to be funding to reach that target. By bringing that target forward to 2032, it would put more emphasis on the Government being able to put the proper resources in so that we are serious, so that we are able to influence those drivers of fuel poverty that we are able to do so and do so quickly. Otherwise, what are we actually saying? The grants, the funding is not enough and we will not meet fuel poverty. I think that it is sad that this Parliament, since its inception, has had the objective of tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. However, now, in 2019, we are saying that that target is being put off to 2040. I will actually be in my 70s by 2040. The people that have come into my surgeries talk about fuel poverty now will probably no longer be alive in 2040. I think that we have to have more ambition, more hope, and that is why we should change that target to 2032. The amendment that I am bringing forward does not hold the Government hostage to force. If there is legitimate reasons why we cannot reach that target, we can change it. However, let us be ambitious for Scotland. Let us be ambitious to end fuel poverty in Scotland and shift the target to 2032 and drive the ambition to tackle that. Thank you very much, convener. I wish to speak in support of the amendments in this group. I want to raise two issues in this. In previous evidence that the minister has indicated that bringing the target forward from 2040 to 2032 would be extremely challenging and difficult. I understand that that is on the basis of analysis that the Scottish Government has done. In the absence of sharing that analysis with the committee, we do not have or I do not have evidence that the minister has to defend the 2040 target. Therefore, I would be interested in being able to see what evidence the minister has about the difficulties and the impossibilities behind some of his language previously in achieving the 2032 target. I back the 2032 target on a proviso as well. Anyone who argues that we can or cannot reach a target by a date that is 12, 15 or 20 years in the future makes that statement with a degree of confidence. It might be a high degree of confidence or it might be a low degree of confidence. As we go forward, it will become clearer as to whether whatever target we set, 2032 or 2040, it will become clearer whether that target is going to be achieved or not. I do think that there is any shame in coming forward in 2025, for example, saying that we are not going to make it 2032 or 2040. We should bring it forward. Therefore, the proviso is that the bill would incorporate Alex Rowley's amendment 54, which provides for the target to be changed in light of circumstances. That is why I am comfortable supporting 2032, because if, in fact, it is demonstrated that that really will become impossible. I do not think that that is a view that we can take now, but it may well be a view that could be taken in 2025. For example, the ability is there to shift that target. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do in light of the evidence and in light of what we know or would know in that kind of scenario. On that basis, I will be voting for amendments in this group by Alex Rowley. I think that it is axiomatic that all of us around this table want to see fuel poverty tackled. That is quickly as possible. I do not think that anyone would doubt anybody's commitment to that. Can I just remind the committee what we agreed at stage one and the stage one report on this issue, and it brought in the different strands of our thinking? The committee notes concerns regarding the length of the target date set out in the bill, which, at 21 years, is considerably longer than the 14-year target previous Scottish Administrations had worked to. However, the committee also understands views that this approach is a pragmatic response to previous attempts to set the target, which ultimately failed. We also recognise arguments that reducing fuel poverty will lean heavily on applying technologies still in development, and that it is realistic to build in time for those to come on stream. The committee also went on to say that the committee therefore accepts the Government's reasons for setting the target date at 2040. However, that would be conditional on the Government bringing forward amendments to make at least some of its interim milestones statutory by way of amendment at stage 2. We are pleased to note that a public commitment has been made to enshrine two of those at stage 2. If the amendments are agreed to, they should help to protect the fuel poverty strategy from drift and enable comprehensive assessment of how well the strategy is working at its midpoint. I think that the committee got it right at stage 1, and it was indeed taking into account the commitment of the minister to come forward with interim targets. I do not really see what has changed as between our agreement to which no member dissented at stage 1 in the report, and today, quite frankly, and just to pick up a couple of points beyond that in terms of what has been mentioned today. Yes, indeed, there was a target set before, and indeed it was missed. Now, to be fair to the previous Labour-Liberal Administration and then the first part of the SNP Administration in 2007, there were certain events that happened as a backdrop to that period of time, which was a global economic recession with massively increased energy prices. I think that it is only fair to put that in context. However, things happen in life, and it is not always easy to entirely predict what is going to happen, particularly at the moment, within the Westminster saga on Brexit, for example. What I am saying is that, yes, a target was set and it was missed. That, to me, would not seem to be a good reason to then set a target that, collectively, we have agreed for pragmatic reasons, is not the best way forward, but rather to have the target that is in the bill 2040 that, for pragmatic reasons, is a target that is deemed to be achievable over that period. That does not mean to say that between now, 2019 and 2040, nothing happens and nobody sees an improvement in their living standards. Rather, the contrary is the case where, as we see people move into a better situation in terms of their fuel and warm homes and so forth, as we see the years progress and we do have the opportunity of the interim targets, which I think is very important. I think that that is an important point to make, that this is not a standing start to 2040 with nothing in between. This is progress being made year on year. With regard to the point that was made that, while there can be a possibility of actually saying that we have got this wrong and that we are not moving forward quickly enough, let us change the target, convener, what we need is a clear plan, a clear route map, which is what the current approach is, particularly in the fuel strategy document, a clear plan of how we intend to get from where we are to bringing us all together in terms of the target to 2040. I think that that makes sense. I think that that is a reasonable way to proceed. It provides some certainty and the approach that is now being suggested today, which was not suggested at stage 1 by anybody in the committee, that we then have the ability to somehow change back to the 2040 in a few years. I do not really see that that is a very practical way forward, and I do not think that that is a helpful way forward for people. When I am dealing with constituent cases in Blingray, my constituency or elsewhere in Cowdenbeath constituency, and I see the conditions that some of my constituents are living in, including houses that have to be tenanted from Fife Council, the first thing that I do is get on to Fife Council to say, what is going on here? Come and treat this home. This is absolutely unacceptable, and so I think that we have to recognise that other players have responsibilities with regard to the matter. Finally, and as Alec Rowley pointed out, we in this Parliament do not hold power over all the key drivers, in particular energy prices and household incomes. We do not hold those drivers here, and to set a target that does not reflect that fact is actually not helpful to the people that we are trying to help. I think that we have to accept the reality of where we are. I would argue that the Parliament should have those powers, but not everybody around this table would convener it, but I certainly would. Although we do not have those powers, I think that it is really unhelpful and risky indeed to improving people's lives and to try to pretend that that is not the reality. I think that that is really unhelpful and does not do the people that we are trying to help a service, so I am afraid that I will not be supporting Mr Rowley's amendments in this group. I agree with what Annabelle has just said, and I would like to thank you for reading out the paragraphs from page 1 of our stage 1 report, Conclusion and Recommendations. It saved me having to do exactly the same thing. We did discuss this at some length and, based on the evidence, we came to, as I understood it, a unanimous view that 2040 was realistic and achievable in 2032 was not. I am surprised that those amendments are coming forward and that they have some additional support on the committee. What Cosla has said is that they consider, and I quote, that it would be callous to implement another target that cannot be achieved. It is one thing to be ambitious but reality has to come into play as well, which is why the committee decided what it did, if one thinks about what lies ahead of us. We are going to go through Brexit, which both the UK and the Scottish Governments believe will lead to a shrinking of the economy by up to 8 per cent by 2030. We will also have fewer workers in our economy and, therefore, there could be considerable issues with regard to labour shortages in terms of implementing the policy to 2032, even with the best wish in the world and even if finances were available. Energy prices, which are one of the four drivers, could increase if sterling continued to decline. Indeed, we have seen that energy prices have gone up 10 per cent in the last few months. We have to be realistic if we are going to deliver that. Also, Alex talked about more funding properly resourced, but I did not hear any figures mentioned as to how much she estimated that would cost, how it would be sourced and how the Government would actually be expected to pay for that. Everyone in the committee would like to see fuel poverty eliminated at the earliest possible date. The Government would like to be more ambitious. I would like to see it in 2025 if it was possible, but the reality is that that cannot happen given current resource constraints. 2040 is, unfortunately, the most likely date in terms of ability to deliver that realistically. However, if progress is made, if the economy grows much stronger than anticipated, if fuel prices do not rise, if incomes go up, we can look again at the targets, the interim targets, and we can reassess and perhaps bring dates forward to 2036, 2032 or even sooner, if possible. However, I will go back to what Cozzler said again that it would be callous to set a target and raise expectations that cannot be met. I also committed to reject those amendments. Thank you, Graham. Thank you very much, convener. This was really one of the key issues that we had to deal with at stage 1 as a committee. Can I start by just saying that I don't think committee members of any committee should necessarily feel bound by a committee report. I fully accept that the report that we produced was unanimous and nobody registered any dissent. However, it is free for MSPs of any party to go away and reflect on matters and to then come to a different view. Having said that, I made the point during the stage 1 debate that I was reflecting on this very issue. I made the point that 2040 is a long time away. It does not sound very ambitious. I think that it was at that point that Mr Gibson got quite exercised and intervened thinking that I was about to demur from the committee's report. However, what I said was that I was still thinking about it because I think that it was a difficult issue. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. I have reflected on it. My conclusion is that, if we are making law, we need to make law that is deliverable and that we have a chance of achieving. 2032, although it sounds ambitious, I think that there is a good chance that we would not hit the target by 2032. However, I think that there is clearly a much better chance that we could achieve it by 2040, even though that is a long way off. My proviso to that is that I think that we would need to put in some interim targets. I note that there is amendment from the minister to enter one date in that my preference would be that there would be a couple of dates. If there is not an opportunity at stage 2, I think that that is something that should be looked at at stage 3. As well as some of the other amendments that we have to deal with later about periodic reporting, I think that that would address the issue that Annabelle Ewing raises about having a clear route map. If we had interim targets, not just the one, but at least two, I think that two would probably do it. You would be able to say that, by x date and y date, we need to achieve this or that, whatever the target is, so that it is not just about 2040, it is about other dates along the road. I think that if we can agree to that yet, that would certainly be my view on things that I would be comfortable with 2040, so long as we can see a way to achieving what we all on the committee want to achieve, which is the eradication of fuel poverty. I am not quite convinced that we can completely eradicate it. I will go back to the words of Andy Wightman in the stage 1 debate when he said that we should take a more critical and sceptical view of targets. He is absolutely right that we need to be sceptical about things. That is why we also need to be realistic. I will not be supporting the Alex Rowley amendments. I completely get why he is tabling them, but I agree to what he is trying to achieve, but I think that we have to produce law that is achievable. I think that there have been some very valid points made this morning by members of the committee. Setting a target always gives an ambition, but that is not always realised. I think that we have heard today that we all want to do as much as we can to tackle the fuel poverty issue. It is a responsibility and none of us are taking lightly, but I think that to be realistic we have to consider all the options. I think that Mr Rowley is doing it for the best intentions. I acknowledge that, but it will be very difficult to be achieved. We should not be putting ourselves up to potentially fail if that is the case. The interim target that has been talked about and discussed is potentially the best way forward. It gives us a stepping stone or a location to see where we are progressing. We have already heard about the external situations and circumstances not within our control that may have an impact on that. That has to be taken into account, because if we are to be realistic about what we are trying to achieve, we cannot ignore some of those potential dangers and warnings around the sector that may not support what we are trying to achieve. However, at the end of the day, I think that all of us and the report at stage 1 indicated that we are very, very passionate about this process and that has not changed. We are still very passionate to try to do as much as we can, but we have to do that within the limitations and the realistic timescales that we find ourselves in. I think that 2040 would give us that opportunity. With something interim, it will also give us an opportunity to exercise and see where we are going in the process. I would not be able to support the amendment. A couple of comments that I would like to make. First of all, about the stage 1 report, I agree with Graham that everybody is entitled to have a slightly differing opinion or to change their mind in some way from the stage 1 report, but I find it a bit strange that on one of the most important issues where we had a lot of debate, a lot of debate that some have changed their mind totally. Having said that, I have got no doubts at all that Alec Rowley put this amendment in with the best of intentions and he is trying to push us forward to bring this about as quickly as we possibly can. However, one of the comments that Alec made was that the first target that was missed under the previous administration was a reason for us to bring an earlier target here. I would say the exact opposite. I would say that missing that target was such a disappointment to so many people that we would not want to do that again, but also highlighted the problems that we have in achieving it because of the lack of the full range of powers that we have. As any country, we have to wait and see what happens with the oil prices and all sorts of other things. I think that it is important that we bring forward a target that people can have trust in and respect in. Annabelle mentioned the new technologies that have still to come in, but it is more than that. Things that take time, for example, are education around about how you are using it. Behavioral change was at Ergyll and Bute that talked about behavioural change is going to take time and people are going to have to be honest at doors and making sure that they start to get people educated about the best way to change their behaviours and make sure that they do not unnecessarily use heating. The point that Alec makes about his constituents is a very valid point, but, as Annabelle quite rightly says, it is not like we are waiting until 2040 before we do anything, but we are hoping that by the time we get to 2040 that everything that is best we possibly can is resolved. Clearly, I will not be supporting the amendment, although I do appreciate the reasons why Alec Rowley brought it forward. Minister. I think that there is a good debate here. As the committee knows against this change, and I would strongly urge the committee to vote against Mr Rowley's amendments, although I do recognise that they are there with the best of intentions. During stage 1, the committee accepted that it was better to have realistic and achievable targets that all involved could work towards. You asked that the Government amend the bill to include interim targets in the face of the bill, and we have brought that forward in terms of 2030. I am more than happy to continue to discuss with members about other aspects of interim targets. What I would say is that I would appeal that they were not too early in the process, because we would not get very much out of them if that were the case, but more than happy to discuss with members on the run-up to stage 3. The committee is well aware that we do not have all the powers over the drivers of fuel poverty, particularly the prices of energy. Therefore, our action has to be through what we can do. That is why we are tackling fuel poverty by going for transformational change for homes through energy-efficient measures. That relies on technologies, some of which are still in development, and it relies on a skilled workforce and local companies to take that forward. The target date has to be agreed by those partners who will bring about that change. The businesses that are taking forward the work, COSLA, and those who own homes, owners, private landlords and RSLs do not want a change to the target that is setting up everyone to fail. They want to work towards a target that can be achieved. Those amendments, if accepted, mean that our energy-efficient Scotland programme would need to be accelerated. I have not yet seen an alternative to the comprehensive route map. Let me mention just a few of the risks of acceleration, convener. One is that it could lead to investment in existing technologies that may need to be replaced, sometimes in the very near future. We must look at that properly if we are going to reach and meet our climate change targets. Of course, I will take an intervention, convener, if that is okay. It is just for clarity that people understand what you mean when you say that technologies may need to be replaced. I assume that you are talking about things like boilers in people's homes. Absolutely. Mr Simpson has nailed that one completely. It may well be that we move with replacement gas boilers only to find that we have to replace those gas boilers quite quickly in order to meet our climate change targets. Mr Rowley, in his speech earlier, talked about the joined-up Government approach. That is what we have tried to do with the climate change bill that will come to the Parliament very soon and with Energy Efficient Scotland. That path, we have taken account of all the pieces of the jigsaw to get that right. Mr Simpson is right on that point. The other thing is that we could lose the economic opportunities to develop skills in the supply chain across Scotland that could potentially support 4,000 jobs. At the moment, it is only larger businesses from outwith Scotland that would be ready to match an accelerated pace. Another is the risk of inflationary pressures. If demand exceeds supply, corners could be cut and costs will escalate, resulting in even higher public spending or increased rents if costs need to be met by landlords. It also risks alienating the public. Cutting the eight years off the target would mean speeding up the pace of regulation and enforcement. We have committed to a phased approach to maximise the take-up of energy efficiency improvements voluntarily up to 2030, with mandatory action to follow. Bringing the target forward would mean taking mandatory action by around about 2024. That is not enough time to work with the public and bring them with us in all of these issues. Moving too quickly may alienate them and not allow individual people and families to plan their own actions. I want to go faster if that is possible, which is why we have started our consultation on the impacts of speeding up the programme. We cannot be faster if that risks credibility in our actions or leads to people paying out more through the public purse or other means. Let me finish with the concerns that were raised by COSLA as Mr Gibson has already highlighted, who pointed to the potential damage done in setting unrealistic targets, even as Mr Gibson says, calling it callus to do so. As COSLA noted, if the improvements required results in rent increasing by more than savings and fuel costs achieved, all we will have done is replace fuel poverty with poverty. We must have a realistic starting point for the target that is within our grasp and can be strive for. 2032 is unrealistic and unachievable before we have even started. It flies in the face of all the concerns that I have set out and the very considered opinion of the committee itself in its stage 1 report. Changing the target date risks the Parliament losing credibility on the issue of tackling and eradicating fuel poverty. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject those amendments that no partner that needs to deliver the 2040 target agrees with. The minister talks about the risk of the Parliament losing credibility on tackling fuel poverty. One would have to assume that that credibility exists at the present time and I am not sure it does. I would like to pick up on a few of those points. The minister talks about energy efficiency improvements and there are a number of myths around that. There is a myth that Annabelle Ewing talked about that. Somehow we are just waiting on the technologies and those technologies will come at some point. The fact is, the cases that I specifically mentioned, the older lady up in Blingary, she was not in a council house, she was in a bot house and so was most of her street. When works were being done in Blingary, they got an offer to insulate their houses. The minister knows the cases because I have been corresponding with them on them. They got an offer of £600 to insulate their house and they all handed over the £600 to take it. Then they discovered that the type of house, metal frames, chute housing, was more expensive to bring about the proper insulation. As a result of that, they are sitting in fuel poverty not because the technology does not exist but because it is more expensive technology and there is not enough funding there. If we are going to be ambitious, we would have to accept that part of that ambition would be to bring more resources forward. Kenny Gibson rightly asked me where would those resources come from. I do not want to get into politics, but I am quite clear that my own party, if in government and Westminster, there would be over 10 years, £47 billion of capital investment coming into Scotland and it is that kind of level investment that we need to see being invested in housing and other infrastructure right across Scotland. It is a myth to say that this is all down to new technologies. The fact is that, for those people that are in fuel poverty now and need energy efficiency improvements, it is a lack of funding. That will come forward in the strategy and, hopefully, the financial memorandum and the commitment to finance alongside that. However, if we set a more ambitious target, then there is more likelihood that we will be getting more resources to deliver it because, if we are not being ambitious, we will not have the resources to be able to deliver it. In terms of being realistic in what is achievable, it was almost like there was a list there given why we will probably never tackle fuel poverty, Brexit, fewer workers, short-age workers, short-age skilled workers. That is what I have to be part of the strategy, but I do not think that it will take to 2040 to be able to put that together. I am not convinced that the people of Scotland will be that impressed that we are setting yet another fuel poverty target the day for 2040 when I will be in my 70s, when lots of people who are living in fuel poverty today in Scotland will no longer be living. That is about whether you have the will, commitment or the drive to put the resources in to make that happen. It seems that SNP and Conservative members are going to team up here today to say that we are just going to put that off into the future. I just think that that is sad. We need to be ambitious. This Parliament needs to be ambitious. Where is your dissent from? I do not hear all this rhetoric when we were debating this report, not one word I heard about all this stuff. You agreed with us about what we should do and what the target should be set. As for this pie in the sky, £47 billion over 10 years for Scotland is fantasy stuff. We are trying to deliver realistic policies for real people in Scotland at this moment in time, not for some potential possible UK Government that may or may not have resources to invest at some point in the future. That is where we are at this moment in time. With the greatest respect, you have set out the day a whole load of excuses as to why we cannot do that. You have to dispel the key drivers of the myths. If you take a key driver, a key driver will be poverty. I am causally saying that we would drive more people into poverty. I am not sure where they come from with that. However, if you take the unacceptable levels, the increases in child poverty in Scotland right now, there is a growing argument being put by Civic Scotland and it gives me five campaigns that to lift 30,000 children out of child poverty would be to increase child benefit by £5 a week. That is something that sits within the power of this Parliament, so it is wrong to say that we do not have any influence over those key drivers. However, I will answer the other point that Kenny makes about the committee report. What I have done is listen to the evidence that came to this committee, but what I have also done is talked with Citizens Advice Scotland, met with Energy Acts in Scotland, listened to Rural Islands Association Forum Scotland, East Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership and have met with the existing Homes Alliance. All of them say that this target is not ambitious enough and that we need to be more ambitious with the flexibility to shift the target if need be. Let us be ambitious for Scotland. Let us say that fuel poverty in Scotland is not acceptable and let us earn our cross by doing everything that we can to eradicate fuel poverty and bring the target forward. I would conclude at that. In that case, the question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Those in favour of amendment 53. Two, those opposed. Five, amendment 53, therefore, is not agreed to. I call amendment 3 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendment 2. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 3 and speak to both amendments in the group. I suspect that this will be slightly less contentious. Members can see the amendment, but I just thought that it might be useful if I can just read out how the bill would look if there is amendment 3. I do not know if it is just me, but I am not hearing Mr Simpson very well. Is there a possibility of dealing with the sound so that I can hear what he is saying? Convener, that is probably my fault that I should speak into the microphone rather than into my paper. That is better, thank you. I have never heard the MDC complain before because he couldn't hear it. That is the service that is being speak before, but... That is very true, convener. If I could just read out how the bill would look if the amendment was passed, it is very short, so it is right at the start of the bill. It deals with the target. The target is that, in the year 2040—this is how it would now read—as far as reasonably possible, no household in Scotland is in fuel poverty and, in any event, no more than 5 per cent of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty, which is the bit that is in the bill at the moment. The purpose behind it should be clear enough to members. It is this that we do not want to just be saying that 5 per cent is our ambition. We actually want to go beyond that. I think that it is a very simple amendment that just clears up that possible confusion and perhaps deals with the ambition that Mr Rowley wants to insert into the bill, so I will leave it at that. I would like to speak to amendment 2 in my name, which is a very straightforward amendment, and notwithstanding Graham Simpson's amendment 3, which proposes to alter the target. The fact is that the word eradication, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means the complete destruction of something. It means getting rid of something completely. The target is, in fact, 5 per cent, and that is therefore a reduction from the current rate of fuel poverty. This is a simple language question to reflect the actual purpose of the bill. Annabelle Ewing, do you want to come in? Yes, thank you, convener. Mr Simpson's amendment is probably fair to say that it picks up on the discussion that we had in our stage 1 deliberations. I am happy to support it on that basis. Mr Wightman's amendment, I recall discussions on that point as well. First, I hear what he says, but I think that language is really important in sending signals. Therefore, I feel that Mr Wightman's approach would not send the best signal. I think that the best signal that we can send is that we are absolutely determined to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland, and that is our ambition. Indeed, picking up on the previous debate, we want to move as quickly as we possibly can, but we need to be realistic, not get people's hopes up cynically and unnecessarily, and do the right thing and work together according to a route map, and that is what we have just agreed to do. In that context, I think that it is important to retain the ambition. I worry that Mr Wightman's amendment might detract from that, and that it is perhaps a semantic issue to an extent. Of course, as a matter of practicality, it has to be recalled that people indeed move in and out of fuel poverty, and there could be very dramatic circumstances that, in the future, could result in that happening on a not-insignificant scale, perhaps beyond the control of any Government, or certainly beyond the control of this Government. As I have already said, I think that we had this exchange in the stage 1 debate, Mr Wightman. As I have already said, this Parliament evidently does not control key drivers of fuel poverty, including household income. We do not have control over macroeconomic policy in the Scottish Parliament. We do not have, even as far as income tax is concerned, control over personal alliances. We do not have control over tax exemptions. We do not have control over VAT. We do not control 85 per cent in terms of value of social security payments, and that is just to name but a few. Sadly, one could go on and on. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I do not intend to address that latter point, which I think that we rehearsed at stage 1. The member talked about the danger of changing the ambition of the bill. The long title is not really about ambition. The ambition is embodied in the bill itself, in the sections. All that I am trying to do in terms of the long title is to more accurately—the long title should reflect what the bill says. The bill does not make any provision for the eradication of fuel poverty. The bill makes provision for a reduction to 5 per cent. It is not a question of whether there should be more or less ambition. I understand the member's point about how language is important, but the importance of language in the long title is to reflect accurately what the bill intends to do. I hear what Mr Wightman says. To be fair to Mr Wightman, he has made this point on a number of occasions. However, I suggest that, if we took Mr Wightman's approach, there would be a risk that we were sending the signal, which I think is really important, that somehow we were limiting our ambition, and we are not limiting our ambition. We are very ambitious to tackle fuel poverty, all of us, around this committee table. However, I fear that, in terms of Mr Wightman's approach, we would muddy the waters and not send the correct signal. I will not be supporting Mr Wightman's amendment. I am happy to accept Mr Simpson's amendment, but not Mr Wightman's amendment. The bill's target is for no more than 5 per cent of households to be in fuel poverty in the year 2040. I want to stress the words no more than because I feel that sometimes they are forgotten about. 5 per cent is a maximum, not a minimum. Our long-term ambition is that no household should be in fuel poverty. 5 per cent is not the target because we are reluctant to go any further. It is there because we do not control all the drivers of fuel poverty, again particularly at energy prices. Getting to 5 per cent is realistic, credible and deliverable by 2040. However, we will always strive to do better. However, people's circumstances change, which people can move in and out of fuel poverty, as Ms Ewing has highlighted. For example, a huge increase in fuel prices could move someone into fuel poverty just as personal economic shocks can do so too. However, 5 per cent is not the limit of our ambition. Our long-term goal is still the eradication of fuel poverty. I was pleased that the committee endorsed this position at stage 1 in your stage 1 report. The 5 per cent target in the bill both relates to and contributes to achieving that ambition. Mr Simpson's amendment serves a useful purpose. It strengthens the bill's target so that in the year 2040, as far as reasonably possible, no household is in fuel poverty. Importantly, it does not remove the 5 per cent target, but rather draws out the full intent behind our 2040 target, which is why I support it. Mr Wightman's amendment substitutes the word eradication for reduction in the long title of the bill. The long title states what our fuel poverty act will do. One of those things will be to set a target relating to the eradication of fuel poverty. I believe that our 5 per cent target is entirely compatible with that description and will be even more so if the committee supports Graham Simpson's amendment today. Mr Wightman's amendment dilutes and detracts from that long-term ambition to eradicate fuel poverty, which is why I cannot support it. Therefore, I urge the committee to support Mr Simpson's amendment, but to reject Mr Wightman's amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. Graham, do you want to wind up? Yes, thanks a lot, convener, and thanks for all the comments. I think that the ministers summed it up very well. If the committee was minded to accept my amendment, we would actually be saying, well, what we are trying to do is ensure that nobody in Scotland is in fuel poverty, and that is our aim. If that is accepted, then clearly the word in the long title of eradication is also accepted, because that is what we are trying to achieve here. In any case, the long title only says that it is an act to set a target relating to the eradication. I am a little bit surprised that Andy Wightman, of all people, has tried to water that down, so I will not be supporting his amendment, but clearly will be supporting my own. Thank you very much. In that case, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. At this stage, I am going to take a short break, five minutes. I call amendment 15, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 16, 24, 25 and 38. Minister to move amendment 15 and speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, the series of amendments will improve the bill and are in line with the committee's stage 1 recommendations, so I would urge the committee to support them. They mean that we will have a definition of extreme fuel poverty and the fuel poverty gap and new challenging targets for both of those on the face of the bill. Putting those additional targets on the same statutory basis as the overall fuel poverty target will bring a focus to those who are deepest in fuel poverty and ensure that the fuel poverty strategy will focus on helping those most in need and not those easiest to help. The test for establishing a household as an extreme fuel poverty will be the same as the two-part test for fuel poverty that is contained in the bill, but that, to be an extreme fuel poverty, a household will need to spend more than 20 per cent of its net income after housing costs on fuel, as opposed to more than 10 per cent. The second part of the test remains the same, that this must leave the household with insufficient income to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Sorry for that slip of the tongue.  A target of no more than 1 per cent indicates that we will not tolerate extreme fuel poverty. It is also a realistic target that takes a kind of people who might move temporarily in or out of extreme fuel poverty due to circumstances beyond the Scottish Government's control, such as fuel prices or personal economic circumstances. The fuel poverty gap measures not just whether a household is in fuel poverty, but how far away they are from the 10 per cent threshold or from reaching the minimum income standard threshold. Again, our strategy does not leave behind those who need to help the most. In 2015, the median gap was almost £650, so achieving the 2040 target of £250 will substantially reduce the severity of fuel poverty that households experience. Achieving the targets will improve many people's lives considerably. The smaller the proportion of net income that they must spend on fuel, the more that they will have for other essentials of daily life. In combination with adding statutory targets for extreme fuel poverty and for the median fuel poverty gap to the existing fuel poverty target already in the bill, we will ensure that future efforts do not leave anyone behind. I would therefore urge the committee to support all of the amendments in the group and I move amendment 15. I just wanted to say briefly that the minister's comments and amendments are welcome in my view because this is something that the committee at stage 1 asked the Government to do. We did hear evidence from a number of stakeholders, including the Wheatley Group, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the existing homes, aligns and others, that were concerned to note that in the bill that was first published there was no definition of extreme fuel poverty. We also heard concerns that absent such a definition there was a risk of, even if the overall target was ultimately met, of efforts being targeted at low hanging fruit, which could therefore leave a disproportionate number of those with the most critical needs remaining in the final 5 per cent facing fuel poverty by the 2040 target. I am very pleased indeed that the minister has listened to the committee and has come forward with amendments on the important issue, and I would be happy to support those amendments. I would just like to concur with those comments. I think that this is very important, and as you will be aware, minister, of me and other comments, particularly in terms of rural, hard-to-heat homes. There is quite a significant proportion of people who live in extreme fuel poverty, so I think that this is an excellent way forward to ensure that we do not end up with a situation whereby the people who are in the deepest fuel poverty at the moment remain so many years from now. It is important that all groups and society benefit equally from this bill, and I think that the phrase low hanging fruit is something that you will be well familiar with. We have raised this on a number of occasions, and we want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the opportunity of their fuel poverty reduced, so I would very much endorse what Annabelle McLean has said on this. Thank you convener. I have praised the minister before, but it is worth doing it again, and I praise him again for the ways that he has engaged with the committee on our recommendations, particularly this one, which I think is really very, very important, that we do tackle people who are living in extreme fuel poverty. It is most welcome. The issue was raised by a number of people, the SFHA, weekly group, Highlands and Islands Housing Association's affordable warmth group, and the existing homes alliance among others. I welcome what the ministers brought forward and will be supporting those amendments. Thank you. Any other comments? In that case, minister, would you like to wind up? Very briefly, convener. I would like to thank the committee and other stakeholders for expressing their views on the issue, and by co-operating with the Government to come up with the set of amendments that we have put forward here today. Defining extreme fuel poverty and setting very ambitious targets to tackle it sends a very clear signal that we are absolutely committed to dealing with the worst first. I have heard the committee again today and others talking about going for the low-hanging fruit first. We know that that should not be the case, and those amendments will ensure that we are dealing with those folks in the most extreme fuel poverty first. No one, convener, should have to choose between heating and eating. For those people who experience this, tackling this problem and keeping them warm and comfortable in their homes, it is likely to have much wider benefits to their lives, possibly improving health and education, and it also has a huge benefit to our society. By adding the statutory targets for extreme fuel poverty and for the medium fuel poverty gap to the existing fuel poverty target already in the bill, we will ensure that future efforts do not leave anyone behind. On that case, the question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Therefore, amendment 15 is agreed to. I call amendment 16, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 15. Minister, to move formally. Moved, convener. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Graham Simpson, to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. I'll move amendment 5. This is a suite of amendments which reflect, again, the committee's stage 1 report, where we said that the 5 per cent target should be met in all council areas across Scotland. Now, there are a couple of things to say about that. Clearly, if you were to take the approach of saying to councils that they should be responsible for meeting those targets, they should be responsible for achieving 5 per cent in their areas, then that is potentially extremely onerous on councils. It's no wonder that we've had some pushback because that's what they thought the intention was. My amendments do not say that they actually placed the onus on the Scottish Government to ensure that the target is met in each council area. That's not the same as putting the onus on councils, but it is saying—and I'll go back to that phrase, low-hanging fruit. Sorry, convener, I'm being distracted slightly. Thank you. Thanks, convener. There could be a danger if we don't do this, that the easiest targets areas will be picked and the less easy areas will be left. That was the intention behind the committee's recommendation. The first one says that ministers must ensure that the 2040 target is met in each council area. Ministers must do that. Then set out the approach that ministers intend to take to ensure that the target is met. Say what steps have been taken to meet the target in each council area. Then say what progress has been made to meet the target. Finally, say what steps ministers propose to take in the next reporting period to meet the target in each council area. Clearly, it says the onus is on ministers, and I think that's the important thing. I think that, hopefully, COSLA can be reassured that the intention is not to put—maybe they won't be—the minister's laughing, but certainly the intention behind these amendments is not to inflict more burdens on councils, but just to ensure that we get a uniform picture across the country when we're trying to deal with this very important issue. Thank you very much. Andy, you wanted to come in? Yes, thanks very much, convener. I have some sympathy with these amendments, however I can't support them as a number of problems I have. The first suite of amendments 5, 4, 7, 6 uses the phrasing must ensure. As far as I am aware, nowhere else in the bill is there a language about ministers must ensure that the national target is met, because clearly, whilst ministers of all administrations going forward to 2040 will use their best endeavours, it's hard to see how they could be held to a mandatory obligation to ensure it's met. I have some difficulty with that language. I also have some difficulty with the fact that this does imply at least and causes local authorities some concern, but notwithstanding the fact that, as Graham Simpson said, it's Scottish ministers who must ensure, inevitably they will feel and do feel that local authorities with, for example, high levels of fuel poverty rates, perhaps disproportionately high as we move forward, will feel that their own scope for making choices about how they reduce fuel poverty and spend their money will be somewhat compromised by the pressure that may well be placed upon them by Scottish ministers in the future to meet a target that they have to ensure is met and yet that it's substantially up to local authorities to, in fact, meet. I've got less problems with the amendments that relate to section 6, because section 6 of the bill is the periodic reports from ministers. It would be helpful if those periodic reports reflected what ministers have done, proposed to do etc in each local authority area, but I do feel that that's probably beyond the scope of the periodic report that is in the bill. Local authorities will have their own responsibilities for reporting and publishing plans, so I don't feel that that adds a great deal to the bill. Finally, as the minister made clear in response to a question that I put to him when he came here to talk about the minimum income standard for remote rural, and has been made clear with reporting to date on fuel poverty. The fuel poverty rates across the country can, and I imagine will, be reported local authority by local authority. Did we have that data? I would like to see it reported according to the urban rural classification. In fact, there's no reason why that data cannot be reported in relation to any geography that we wish. Obviously, not very, very small geographies, but any other geography within, for example, the area of each health board. There's no reason why that can't be reported. That reporting will, in fact, highlight, obviously, where progress is being made and where progress is not being made. That's why we know that, in Orkney, fuel poverty rates are still unacceptably high. In my view, that is sufficient to create the circumstances in which ministers and local authorities will work hard to make sure that those authorities where fuel poverty rates remain stubbornly high have the resources and have the tools at their disposal to be able to effectively bring them down. I believe that the reporting will be sufficient to take account of any concerns that there are. It's a legitimate concern that we may have a multi-speed approach to eradicating fuel poverty with some authorities remaining stubbornly high than others. I think that it follows on from amendment 3, because if we're looking at 5 per cent in Scotland, then how do we make that a whole by 5 per cent in every local authority? We don't want a situation like in Orkney where I think that some 57 per cent are currently in fuel poverty, but I don't think that the burden should and will fall on local authorities to reduce that. The Scottish Government allocates resources towards the eradication of fuel poverty, would I expect, to do so on a pro-rata basis so that all local authorities can meet that target? There's no point in giving every local authority similar amounts per capita, for example, if the problem is much more acute in one area than another. I think that amendment makes it clear whether the direction of travel is and allows the flexibility of Government to dedicate resources to ensure that Liam McArthur's constituents—indeed, my own island constituents—are not in a situation where they are disproportionately burdened by fuel poverty for years to come. Again, it's the old adage about low-hanging through. We want to make sure that every community, every local authority, whether people are in extreme fuel poverty or not, we're addressing this issue across the board, and I think that amendment helps us to do that. Just to say briefly that, indeed, this was an important part of the evidence that we took at stage 1. Again, it was an issue upon which the committee at stage 1, at least, were unanimous, that there should be a recognition that the target had to be met in each local authority area, the 2040 target. For reasons that have already been stated, that is entirely right and proper, and if we didn't proceed with that approach, there would be a real danger that some would be left behind. Indeed, that was a point that was made by Argyll and Bute Council, who had stated that there was a risk with a blanket nationwide target that, indeed, householders in remote and rural areas will be disproportionately represented in the residual, even if the 5 per cent target were to be met. That is a bill for the whole of Scotland, our islands, our remote communities, our urban areas, this is for everybody and nobody indeed should be left behind. It is also good to hear that the minister has—sorry, that the debate on this recognises that it is the minister, as the committee had said at stage 1, is to work with local authorities to consider how best to distribute schemes to balance requirements and meet needs. Perhaps we will hear a bit more about that shortly, but I am happy to support amendment 4 on the basis of the 2040 target and those that relate of Mr Simpson's amendments to the 2040 target, which is what we have agreed in our first grouping this morning. Are there any other committee members who wish to comment on that? Liam, you would like to make a contribution? Thank you, convener, for having been named and shamed by Mr Gibson. I thought that it pertinent and probably advisable to contribute only very briefly and very much to endorse the comments that Ms Ewing and Mr Gibson have made. I think that there is a risk in trying to put in place an overly onerous requirement on either local authorities or the Scottish Government. I think that the way that amendment 4 is phrased strikes the right balance. I think that the trajectory of how we get to that target will be different in each local area as a result of where they currently stand and, indeed, the local circumstances. However, I think that it will be seen as a failing if we get to the point in 2040. There is a wide disparity—still a wide disparity—between the best-performing local authorities and the poorest-performing local authorities. Amendment 4 seems to me to strike the right balance in achieving that objective. The committee and I are in agreement that we need to tackle fuel poverty throughout Scotland in every single community. To do that, it is absolutely vital that we do not leave behind those in the most challenging circumstances. That is why we have brought forward amendments to introduce additional rights relating to both the medium fuel poverty gap and extreme fuel poverty. Those are intended to ensure that we reduce the severity of fuel poverty experienced in all areas of Scotland, whether that be Orkney, whether that be Arran or whether that be Aberdeen. That means that we will not just focus on those households that are the easiest to raise out of fuel poverty. I know that the committee at stage 1 said that we should consider amending the bill to introduce local authority statutory targets. In my response, I said that we need to seek the views of COSLA about that, given the implications that such an amendment would have on Scotland's councils. COSLA has since made it clear to me and to the committee that it has a series of concerns about those amendments. Equally, I have heard strong representations from Mr Simpson on his amendments and from my own colleagues, in particular Mr Gibson, on that issue. I am aware that I have to strike a balance between the views of Scotland's local authorities and Parliament. Following my conversations and the original recommendation of the committee, it is clear that the committee would like to apply a 2040 target at a local authority area level, thereby ensuring reporting and accountability for each of our council areas. I confirm that I will support the amendments in Mr Simpson's name that provide for this relating to a 2040 target. We may need to consider refining some of those slightly at stage 3, not least because I understand that local authority statistics are not available quite as quickly as national ones, but I would be happy to work with Mr Simpson on all of that in advance of stage 3. I would also like to emphasise that such targets mean that it will be vital for the Scottish Government to work closely with COSLA and individual local authorities to ensure that we focus on delivery. When I have talked to councils about fuel poverty and energy efficiency, the one thing that they consistently emphasise is the need for local flexibility, and we have already made some changes in terms of local flexibilities. I want to ensure that that is possible, in particular the requirement to set out the steps locally that will be taken to address fuel poverty. However, having a national target and local targets, we can tailor our approaches and ensure that no one is left behind. I would support Mr Simpson's amendments that relate to the 2040 target. Thank you, convener. Very briefly, convener. Once again, I thank the members for their contributions. It was particularly good to hear from Liam McArthur giving that island perspective along with Mr Gibson, of course, who has spoken extensively in the committee about the islands in his constituency. It is really important that, in order to deliver the targets that we do not miss anyone out, that is the intention behind this whole suite of amendments that we will be voting on. That will be amendment 4, which relates to the 2040 target. Amendment 5 deals with the 2032 target, which we have already rejected. As always, I am prepared to speak to the minister who feels that things need to be refined because this is about making good law that works for everyone and particularly works for councils. I am happy to have those conversations. I will not be pressing amendment 5 that relates to the 2032 target, but I will be pressing amendment 4, which is 2040. Graham Simpson wishes to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to that amendment being withdrawn? In that case, no one objects to the amendment that is ever withdrawn. I call amendment 4, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 5. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour of amendment 4 are opposed. That is six in favour and one opposed. I call amendment 54, in the name of Alec Rowley, grouped with amendments 93, 94 and 95. Alec Rowley, to move amendment 54 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The purpose of amendment 54 allows the target to be moved on a recommendation by the advisory panel. I intend to move amendment 5, but I accept that there would need to be changes made to it at stage 3, because at this point it reads as advising that the target would not be met. That was clearly to link up with my first amendment moving the target to 2032. However, the same principle could apply if the advisory panel believed that we were making good progress and could shift the target the other way. That would need to be tidied up. I do accept that, but having the ability to move the target is the right thing if the advisory panel feels that either we can reach that target sooner or later, depending on what the issues are. Thank you very much. Does any member wish to speak to amendment 54 and 93? On amendment 4, that is incredibly helpful. It was on this provisor that I was content and agreed to change the target to 2032. That has obviously been rejected, but in light of that, the language at the end will need to be modified, because I believe that if in 2025 or 2026 or 2027 or 2028 it is felt that we could bring the target forward, then that obviously needs to be reflected in the bill. I will be supporting amendment 54. I think that 93 is a critical amendment. It was the view of the committee that we do need more effective scrutiny, not just of Government's section 6 reports, but on the likelihood of the target being met or missed, and indeed the extent to which the four drivers of fuel poverty are being addressed. It is always an issue in bills setting up independent scrutiny. I am not a supporter of setting up a bureaucratic organisation with lots of resources, and I note section 9 caps the finances available to the panel. I think that the job of the panel is to provide a very brief but considered and well informed and probably quite a short report to inform Parliament. On the validity of the things that are said in section 6 reports and to take a view on the likelihood of the target being achieved. With the best will in the world, any administration will always want to say that, yes, the target will be achieved, but some independent analysis of that is extremely useful. I will make the final point that under section 11, where it talks about the four drivers of fuel poverty, it is not incomes that are a driver, although they are an influence, it is the net adjusted income. That has arrived after taking account of factors that are well within the control of this Parliament. Similarly, the energy cost should relate to households, the energy performance should relate to dwellings, etc. There is some language there that will require tidied up at stage three, but with that in mind, I am happy to support all the amendments in this group. On the basis of what Alex Rowley has told the committee this morning, I am happy to support on that basis. I expect that, in line of what he has said, that is what language we would see coming forward at stage three. On the issue of setting up a panel and so forth, I would again see what I have said in committee deliberations, which is that any panel or in any other area of economic activity in Scotland, we want to remember that the resources are not endless and that absolutely the priority is always to put those to the front line, always, in my view. However, I recognise that this advisory panel would have a job of work to do, and as long as it is not going to cost the public person a lot of money that could otherwise be diverted to improving the individual's existence in their own home, I am happy to support that as well. Graham, you wanted to come on. Yes, very similar comments. Since convener on amendment 54, I would be happy to support it on the basis that Alex Rowley is proposing to amend it, because clearly what we would not want is for the target to be pushed beyond 2040, and that would be a danger at the way it is worded at the moment. On that provise, I would be happy to accept 54. On amendment 93, I think that it possibly does need a little bit of work, not least because it refers to the 2032 target, which clearly does not exist anymore, so there's probably some tweaks required. I'm not sure if we've got time to do it for next week, but if not, then on stage 3. Convener, having considered this matter very carefully, I am sympathetic to the concept of having the fuel poverty advisory panel put in a statutory footing. However, Alex Rowley's amendment 93 needs the refining that folks have already pointed out, because it is based on that 2032 target. If we are to have this statutory panel, then of course it must be aligned to the 2040 target date. I also appreciate the capping of costs from Mr Rowley, as costs for the poverty and inequality commission are closer to £400,000 a year. However, I think that taking into account we would need a secretariat and to go through a public appointment system we'll need to build on something a little bit more than Mr Rowley has envisaged. It follows that if the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel is on a statutory footing, it should have powers to make recommendations that would allow the Parliament to revisit the target date. Therefore, I'm content to support the principle of what Mr Rowley is trying to achieve with his amendments. I think that they are proportionate and they will improve the bill. However, I would like to put on record that it will be my intention to bring this back at stage 3 to align with the 2040 target date and also a more realistic expenditure, but to keep him within a cap close to the one that Mr Rowley seeks to achieve. I'm not happy with all the responses to that and I'm happy to further discuss with the minister and at stage 3 address the points that need to be addressed in here, but the principle is one that's agreed. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed to. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members of the eight pre-emptions in this group as shown on the groupings, and the minister is to move amendment 17 and speak to all amendments in the group. My series of amendments are in line with the commitments that I have given during the passage of the bill and in line with the committee's recommendations, so I would urge you to support them. I committed to introducing the two 2030 targets from the draft fuel poverty strategy on the face of the bill. Those were that in the year 2030 the fuel poverty rate will be no more than £350 in 2015 prices before adding inflation. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that we do this, stating that the interim targets would enable comprehensive assessment of how well the fuel poverty strategy was working at its midpoint. You also recommended that the Government introduce amendments to include a target to tackle extreme fuel poverty. I committed to doing so, and I sent the committee a briefing on how we would take that forward. My amendment putting a target on the face of the bill that in the year 2030 no more than 5 per cent of households are in extreme fuel poverty forms part of my commitment to tackling extreme fuel poverty, as do the other two 2030 targets that I want to see enshrined in our fuel poverty act. Those amendments represent a practical means of maintaining the momentum of the fuel poverty strategy through to the final target date of 2040. Let me now turn to Mr Whiteman's amendment to set interim targets so early in the programme, which would result in unachievable targets that would undermine the credibility of the strategy. Given that the committee's stage 1 report called for amendments to enshrine 2030 interim targets in legislation, I am a little bit surprised by the amendment. We must be realistic in our targets and work closely with local delivery partners to demonstrate progress towards the no more than 5 per cent by 2040 target. That means making sure that we can take advantage of new technologies to provide people with the right solutions for their homes and to better their lives. We must not set unrealistic unachievable targets that do not have a credible plan for delivery and risk again failing to achieve them. In a briefing to the committee, COSLA said that setting unachievable fuel poverty targets would be callous. In addition, the Government's proposed amendments are in direct response to the committee's own recommendations in its stage 1 report. It is also of vital importance that we can set interim targets that can be met or that we will risk the public and those who need our help the most losing confidence in all of us. I am more than happy to have further discussions about achievable interim targets, but I would ask the committee to reject Mr Whiteman's amendment and to support the amendments in my name, and I move amendment 17. Andy, would you like to speak to amendment 19 and other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. I will not be pressing amendment 19. It was framed in the context of a possible 2032 target, which is now no longer in the bill. I am also conscious that the minister's amendment 18 more accurately reflects in the text bits of the bill, such as the section on meaning of fuel poverty gap, which is absent in mine. However, I would ask the minister if he is open to discussing the possibility of an additional interim target between now and 2040. I am not precious about when that should be, but it seems to me that having two is not unreasonable on a 22-21-year outlook. I will leave my remarks at that. Thank you very much. I am pleased to hear that Andy Whiteman is not pressing amendment 19. It is clearly related to the 2032 target, so it is unrealistic at the moment. I fully support the minister's amendment 18, but I would go back to what I said at the very start of today's session that I do feel that there should be an extra target. I do not know what that should be, but I am certainly open to having discussions with the minister, and I completely agree with him that whatever it is, it should be achievable. From my perspective, I am pleased again that the minister has acted in accordance with commitments that he made. Of course, I would truly expect him to do so at all times, but it is pleasing none the less to note that the politician comes and does what he said that we are going to do. I hear what Andy Whiteman has said, and I note that he is not going to press his amendments I understand the context in which he had tabled them, but we have, as a committee, agreed 2040 as the target. Therefore, in that context, it does not fit with the now interim target proposed of 2030. It would be interesting to hear on the possibility of a further interim target, and I guess we will hear from the minister shortly about that. That might indeed be a very useful way to proceed in light of our initial discussion on the first grouping of amendments this morning, because, to reiterate, we all absolutely are determined to ensure that we tackle fuel poverty in Scotland. I do not think that it is really good for the reputation of politicians for a politician to sound so surprised that a politician has kept their word. Minister, can I just wind up, please? I share your view on that, convener. I will keep this very brief in the hope that you allow a wee break after this for comfort purposes. I am more than happy to meet with Mr Simpson, Mr Whiteman or any other member considering putting in play another interim target as long as that is viable and achievable, which I think everybody understands that situation. More than happy to have those further discussions with both members or any other member that wants to speak to me on that issue. I would kind of finish, but if the convener allows. Sorry, for clarity, I am grateful to what the minister has said. Can he confirm that, in light of the fact that we will probably be enshrining the interim target in amendment 18, that amendment 54 that we just passed about ministers made by regulations changed the target year, that that should be amended at stage 3 to include any recommendations relating to changing the interim targets as well? I will consider that when we have the discussions with Mr Riley and Mr Whiteman. Okay, thank you very much. In that case, the question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you.  We are making just a few votes. Yes, of course. It is my understanding that we should be calling amendment 55, which is also section 1. It is preempted, Andy. I beg your pardon. It is okay, if I hadn't had Peter here, I wouldn't have realised that. Are you okay to continue, minister? Because we are going to finish shortly. Okay, on you go, yeah. I call amendment 18, in the name of the minister, all ready to be debated with amendment 17. Right, the question is that amendment 18 be agreed to, are we all agreed? In this case, I think we will have that very short break because I now call amendment 19, in the name of Andy Whiteman, all ready to be debated with amendment 17. Andy Whiteman, to move or not move? Do you want me to answer for that? Ah, yes, indeed, convener. Yes, I'm not pressing this. Right, that's not moved then. Thank you very much. In that case, that comes to the end of this session. I want to thank the minister for his time today and close the public part of the meeting.