Chamber and committees

I have no further questions.

That argument having been made, I will go right back to the issue raised in the convener’s question. You have been talking to the UK Government about the issue for about six months now. Do you have a sense that the argument is being heard and that there is sympathy for it? Do you have any sense of how this is going to go at this stage?

I am grateful for those answers.

I understand the point that you are making. However, if we start from saying that the powers relate to devolved areas so there is a significant degree of seriousness to what is proposed, might there be an argument for saying that, rather than limiting consent to the Scottish ministers, the Scottish Parliament should have a role in considering any such proposals?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a couple of questions. Throughout the bill—but particularly in part 7, which concerns heat networks—the Scottish Government looks to change the wording in the provisions from

“the Secretary of State is to consult the Scottish Ministers”

to “the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers”.

Will you help the committee to understand what the practical implications would be of sticking with consultation over seeking consent? Is there a standard approach? Is it usual to consult, is it usual to seek consent or is there no standard?

It follows on from the deputy convener’s question and takes you back to what I asked at the start, cabinet secretary. We talked about looking to change from a requirement merely to consult the Scottish ministers to one to seek their consent. I think that I heard that that would be the more usual and, perhaps, more appropriate way to go. If that is right, do you have a view on how, given the number of times that that comes up in the process, we, you or the UK Government could identify such issues at an earlier stage of the drafting so that we do not get to this point six months on, say, from when the matter is initially raised but, by this stage, we are arguing about more substantive matters, such as those that you detailed?

On that point about the public and private investment, a written response to the convener’s letter of 10 November states that the Scottish Government intends to

“deliver £60m of public and private investment to at least double the size of Scotland’s public charging network”

as you discussed. How much of that £60 million do you expect to come from public sector investment, which budget line do you expect it to come from and over what period?

I have a couple of questions on electric vehicle charging.

The Climate Change Committee considers that we need 30,000 public EV charging points in Scotland by 2030. We currently have fewer than 3,000, I think. Your written evidence to the committee confirmed that you do not have a target for the installation of EV charge points—certainly, not a target of the 30,000 that we understand that we will require. Could the lack of a target have a negative impact on your ability to set budgets for installation and to plan and deliver on a comprehensive roll-out?

I understand. I am grateful.

I am grateful for that response. Can you help me to fully understand that? There was an exercise that looked across the portfolios for, let us say, underspends—that is my word and you will correct me if it is not the appropriate one—and then moved that money from those various budget lines into the £60.9 million budget for the ferries. Is that a fair reflection of what you said?