Chamber and committees

Okay. Laura Meikle, do you want to come in?

I am just passing through the committee, cabinet secretary, but I am curious to know to what extent the new agency will be consumer facing. I was looking at some of the various strands that it is trying to pull together, such as area-based schemes for warmer homes Scotland, the whole-house approach, the heat network fund, the social housing zero heat fund and the green public sector heat fund. Those are just some of the strands that I looked at ahead of this morning’s committee. At what point will the energy agency be sector-facing? Will it join the dots of government? How will it be consumer or public facing?

My question is on EV charging, convener. It is not about Achnasheen, I have to say. It is not about charging points but about the charging regimes and length-of-stay requirements at bays in different local authority areas.

My experience in Glasgow—particularly as regards the taxi trade, which has invested in EVs—is that EV tourism is taking place whereby vehicles go long distances to get cheaper tariffs. Another issue is that drivers cannot charge their cars fully because of restrictions such as 3-hour limits, which cause a lot of issues. It is counterintuitive that EVs are travelling longer distances to get better tariffs. Is that issue on the Government’s radar? Will it consider alignment and the implementation of a reasonable charging regime across urban and rural Scotland?

I will restrict myself to those on which you hoped to get comments on the record, convener.

As the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights is one of your supporting ministers, could you update the committee on when the Scottish Government plans to consult on the proposals for the heat in buildings bill?

Cabinet secretary, you said that only that particular substance, PFOA, can be used, and that there is no substitute or alternative, so what happens on 3 December 2025? Does the need for it just disappear, or does the UK Government move away from its Stockholm obligations? Has that conversation been had with the UK Government?

Scrutinising in the dark is a bit odd, cabinet secretary, but I appreciate what you say. In our committee papers, the Government says that

“Continued use is required for a defence-critical capability; the use is small, critical and the chemical is used and disposed of by professionals.”

Have you had reassurances from the UK Government on the monitoring and reporting of that to make sure that there are robust protocols in place, rather than an assertion that there are robust protocols in place?

I am not minded to oppose that. I get that it is based on trust as much as anything, but I wanted to ask those questions to get some of that on the record. Thank you.

May I ask a very brief question on that?

I will forgo my supplementary question if we are going to get a written update. I know that time is tight.

Of course. Thank you.