���˿���

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.

Monica Lennon might like to come in and ask further questions around this but I will ask this question for consistency’s sake. As I was listening to the previous witnesses, I was conscious that people at a European level are grappling with all these issues, too. Certainly, the European Union is keen for corporate Europe, as it were, to report on scope 3 emissions. Of course, the Scottish public sector has a large supply chain stretching across Europe and beyond.

I asked COSLA’s representative this question, and she is away to think about it. What cognisance does the Scottish Government take of alignment with the European methodology around reporting on these issues? Is there a connectivity with how Scotland reports on them? Is there on-going work or an opportunity to start a bit of work around that?

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?

I just want to make a general point, convener. I was going to say, “Could you just say all of that again, cabinet secretary? I did not quite catch it”, but I will not.

What is self-evident—it is really just to put this on the record—is that the Government’s legislation team is moving through the bill with a fine-toothed comb to tighten and clarify matters. In years to come, whoever is sitting on the committee will welcome those clarifications. It has clearly involved a lot of work from the officials. Although that is, of course, their job, we really welcome the work that they have put in with regard to section 17.

It was lovely to hear that Jeremy Balfour is regretful of his previous views on SCOSS. I did not hear him repent, but nonetheless.

I ask the cabinet secretary to say in summing up whether there will be a need at some point in the future for a more consolidated strategic review of the powers and effectiveness of SCOSS, and whether it might not be the place of the bill to tack something on to increase the powers of the commission. Rather, we as a Parliament could decide at some point in the future—this committee could hold evidence sessions on it—what the appropriate powers and roles of SCOSS would look like. The Government could respond to that or it could do something more proactive. I am just not sure that this bill is the right piece of legislation to do that bit of work

I am happy to take more interventions from Mr Balfour, but I suggest that, if he waits a wee bitty, he will see that I am going to come on to all of that. I just want to say that, if we agreed to his amendment today, any such audit would lack credibility.

It is weak to argue that we already have a backstop through the power that relates to an unscheduled review of circumstances. If Audit Scotland were to use that power for audit purposes, one would feel that it was targeting individuals; after all, the power exists to deal with cases where Social Security Scotland thinks that there might have been a change of circumstances, fraudulent activity or an overpayment. Therefore, the use of that power indicates—almost—that something is amiss, whereas with a random, statistically significant, structured, strategic and methodical audit, no one would be targeted. Using the backstop power that Mr Balfour has suggested would, in my view, mean targeting individuals.

I would like the cabinet secretary to provide a bit more information ahead of stage 3, or perhaps at stage 3, on the exemptions that will be consulted on. I would also like to get a bit more clarity on the threshold at which payments will be suspended. Mr Balfour made a strong point about the fact that one of the reasons that someone might not supply the required information is that they are clearly vulnerable. I want to know about the threshold at which Social Security Scotland will move to suspend a benefit. For example, will the person concerned get a knock on their door from someone who has come to do a welfare check? I want to know what risk assessment will be done and how a person’s risk profile will be assessed before any move to suspend assistance is made. It is important that we get more information on that, but that does not mean that I concede that, as well intentioned as Mr Balfour’s and Ms Chapman’s amendments are, they should be agreed to.

Finally, perhaps the cabinet secretary could say a bit more about how, once the audit process is embedded in Social Security Scotland, the agency will review the process to improve or finesse it. I believe that the suspension of payments should be an absolute last resort. Therefore, we need to get the threshold right and to put welfare before the suspension of benefits. There is a balance to be struck there, which Mr Balfour and Ms Chapman are trying to explore today, but I do not think that their amendments would secure that.

I am happy to take more interventions from Mr Balfour, but I suggest that, if he waits a wee bitty, he will see that I am going to come on to all of that. I just want to say that, if we agreed to his amendment today, any such audit would lack credibility.

It is weak to argue that we already have a backstop through the power that relates to an unscheduled review of circumstances. If Audit Scotland were to use that power for audit purposes, one would feel that it was targeting individuals; after all, the power exists to deal with cases where Social Security Scotland thinks that there might have been a change of circumstances, fraudulent activity or an overpayment. Therefore, the use of that power indicates—almost—that something is amiss, whereas with a random, statistically significant, structured, strategic and methodical audit, no one would be targeted. Using the backstop power that Mr Balfour has suggested would, in my view, mean targeting individuals.

I would like the cabinet secretary to provide a bit more information ahead of stage 3, or perhaps at stage 3, on the exemptions that will be consulted on. I would also like to get a bit more clarity on the threshold at which payments will be suspended. Mr Balfour made a strong point about the fact that one of the reasons that someone might not supply the required information is that they are clearly vulnerable. I want to know about the threshold at which Social Security Scotland will move to suspend a benefit. For example, will the person concerned get a knock on their door from someone who has come to do a welfare check? I want to know what risk assessment will be done and how a person’s risk profile will be assessed before any move to suspend assistance is made. It is important that we get more information on that, but that does not mean that I concede that, as well intentioned as Mr Balfour’s and Ms Chapman’s amendments are, they should be agreed to.

Finally, perhaps the cabinet secretary could say a bit more about how, once the audit process is embedded in Social Security Scotland, the agency will review the process to improve or finesse it. I believe that the suspension of payments should be an absolute last resort. Therefore, we need to get the threshold right and to put welfare before the suspension of benefits. There is a balance to be struck there, which Mr Balfour and Ms Chapman are trying to explore today, but I do not think that their amendments would secure that.

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?