Chamber and committees

I am keen to ask more but I will restrict myself because of time.

Can you update the committee on the heat and energy efficiency Scotland agency, which is being developed? I think that it is virtual, but it is not fully-fledged as yet. Where is its development?

This is a very helpful discussion. In any letter that is sent, it would be worth asking whether such protocols have previously existed, what the current situation is, and whether consideration has previously been given or could be given in the future to how committees in the Scottish Parliament can appropriately scrutinise such matters. I am sure that we all agree that it is absolutely necessary but deeply unsatisfactory that what has been proposed has been proposed within days of the expiration and that there is no meaningful scrutiny. It has all been taken on trust.

That is really helpful. I have already sought a meeting with the relevant political leads at Glasgow City Council about the impact on the taxi sector in the city. The issue is much wider and some aspects of it have perhaps gone unnoticed. I would welcome a meeting with Transport Scotland—separate from this committee, of course—to discuss that. For example, it is much more expensive to charge EVs in the winter because they have to work harder. I do not think that the tariffs reflect the overall costs where someone makes their living from driving a car that is as environmentally friendly as it can be. I would welcome a meeting outwith this forum to discuss that issue further—not specifically in relation to Glasgow, but focusing on a national strategy. That would be very helpful.

I have a supplementary question on the pilot specifically. I will come back in later on the budget.

Minister, you mentioned that you had spoken to universities recently—yesterday—about the issue. Of course, there are three moving parts to it: universities, colleges and the youth sector. We are talking about a pilot and the Government has commitments to widening access and targeting resources at those most in need and least likely to get overseas and foreign travel.

You have spoken to universities, but can we anticipate that it will not necessarily be university led and that it could be college led or youth sector led, and that it could be targeted at those least likely to be mobile and to travel in Europe in the first place? Will the pilot be targeted at those most in need, minister?

My question is on budgetary concerns if that is okay, convener.

Minister, it is reasonable to assert that the financial position of the Scottish Government has been dramatically eroded since the manifesto commitments were made, due to inflation, cost pressures in education and UK Government austerity measures. That is a strong argument for you, as the minister. However, the committee still has to scrutinise the potential budget lines irrespective of all that. The Welsh scheme is costing £65 million over four years, which means £16.25 million per annum, for a fully rolled-out scheme. Can you share with us any indicative figures, whether the Government pays that in full or in part, for the pilot?

It would be helpful if we could have an idea of those figures as soon as possible. We understand that figures move and that projections can change, but having early sight of them would be helpful to the committee.

The committee also has to make choices because of cost pressures and demands. If the Scottish Government were to come forward and say, “We have found £25 million per annum to run this scheme,” committee members would still have to decide whether that was the best way to spend that money in the sector, given the cuts to college budgets and other current cost pressures. The committee has to contend with moving parts on budgetary concerns.

Are you sensitive to the fact that any spend on that manifesto commitment might have an impact on other commitments that we have made in the education portfolio? How would you manage such conflict?

Will you say more about that?

I am keen to move away from talking about City of Glasgow College, because, although I am sure that constituents will be listening very carefully to our exchange on City of Glasgow College, there are colleges across the country. I have no doubt that some of them are performing very well and have close relationships with their union colleagues, but that is not so much the case for other colleges. I am also sure that some will robustly challenge college principals, and that others might not do so much of that. How do we get consistency of approach to scrutiny? If we were talking about issues related to housing associations, there would be the ability to appoint individuals to boards to support oversight.

Is there anything to prevent colleges from going to the SFC and asking it to check it over even though they do not have a legal duty to? Would that be best practice?

On that, will you take account of the fact that those who do not go to college or university are the least likely to undertake overseas travel? Those who go to university are the most likely, and those in colleges are somewhere in the middle. Will that be taken into account in any pilot?