Chamber and committees

The deputy convener has made a reasonable comment about the potential unintended consequences of not passing this secondary legislation. Clearly, we are at the very least going to correspond with people—we still have to establish what else we might or might not do—so I am keen to find out, perhaps from the Government, how easy it would be for the Scottish Government to listen to on-going concerns if the instrument were to be passed. After all, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will be doing a piece of work separate from what we do. I wonder whether, theoretically, the Government could lay a supplementary negative instrument at a later date, depending on whether it feels that there has been a weight—[Inaudible.]—more about the process in relation to that.

Cabinet secretary, I was not going to come in until you mentioned the target of 6,000 EV charge points in Scotland by 2026. In recent months, I have been contacted by a constituent who is a wheelchair user and requires a PAS 1899 standard charging bay. I know that this is quite technical, but having Matthew Eastwood here presents an opportunity to ask about that. I believe that Glasgow City Council has installed only four such bays, all of which are at the same location. From my correspondence with the council, I am aware that is keen to do much better than that.

A barrier is faced in ensuring that charge points are not just available but accessible. Cabinet secretary, I know that you are responsible for the policy, but, given that Mr Eastwood is here, I thought that that was a reasonable point to put on the record and to get additional information on.

I have a constituent who wishes to buy an electric car and requires the use of PAS 1899 standard charge points. The standard ensures that, for example, there is enough space in a bay to enable them to charge their car outwith the home. We are not doing very well on such provision at the moment. Is that under the Government’s radar? What is the target to improve things?

That is helpful. They will struggle with the same things that local authorities in Scotland struggle with. It is about making sure that there is communication. Thank you very much, convener.

The Get Glasgow Moving petition is really interesting. Initially, it appears that it seeks to redraw primary legislation, if it were to move through Parliament and be successful. Today, however, we are looking at secondary legislation for something that was agreed by the Parliament in 2019. Therefore, although there is a connection between the petition and what we are looking at today, I do not think that it is a direct one.

The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee will have to be allowed to decide how it wishes to scrutinise and go forward with the petition. The question in my head is whether, if we do not pass this negative instrument or allow it to move forward, there will be any pathway for franchising bus services in Scotland. In that respect, I am very mindful of SPT’s ambitions to improve the bus service via franchising in Glasgow.

That said, I agree with Mark Ruskell MSP that we need more information on how all of this works. It is very reasonable for Get Glasgow Moving to seek clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner and the panel that would be appointed, and the criteria by which they might or might not make decisions.

As I say, there is absolutely a need for more information, but I just want to put on record that there are two moving parts here. The first is Get Glasgow Moving’s commendable efforts to seek a wider scrutiny role for the Parliament with regard to primary legislation that it has already passed, and the second is the secondary legislation that we are looking at and which provides a pathway to bus franchising. The two things are connected, but not directly so. Again, I would absolutely welcome more information from the Scottish Government, and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity on the role of the traffic commissioner, too.

It is final, and it is brief. I am on my phone because I have to Google things to better understand them as I am listening. I am learning as I go along, convener.

There is clearly a complex emerging methodology and it is not an exact science. It is an iterative process that has to be proportionate for local authorities, but we quite clearly need embedded practice across all supply chains everywhere, with an agreed international methodology.

This is a question for ESS. I am conscious that the European Union is seeking to move to scope 3 reporting from next year for companies above a certain scale. Is there an opportunity for public bodies—not just local authorities in Scotland but across the UK and beyond—to align at European level on some of this stuff? When local authorities go to supply chains that include international Europe-based companies, there could be alignment and the data would have integrity. Has that been looked at, or is it completely tangential to the discussion?

I have a final question; the convener has asked me to be brief.

This might be for Silke Isbrand. I am conscious that large public authorities right across Europe will be grasping the scope 3 reporting requirements for supply chains at Europe level. Could COSLA and our local authorities look to share best practice on how to do that? If you do not have information now, that is absolutely fine. If there is information at the back of your mind, you can contact the committee after the meeting to give it to us. It is about European alignment and embedding best practice proportionately.

That is really helpful. I think that the Scottish Government had an official helping to develop those UK-wide regulations. It might be that the PAS 1899 standard on EV bays has only recently become live.

I am already corresponding with Glasgow City Council and I will continue to do so. If I take a step back, I note that we have 32 local authorities and a nationwide endeavour to ensure that charge points are accessible to wheelchair users and others with disabilities. The issue is how the Scottish Government will collate that information.

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

Mr Balfour, the policy intent of amendment 14 seems to be to have a presumption in favour of face-to-face hearings rather than a presumption in favour of choice, but your argument seems to be that you want the policy intent to be to have a presumption in favour of choice rather than a presumption in favour of face-to-face hearings. I am concerned that your policy intent does not match your amendment.