���˿���

You might recall, cabinet secretary, that when you were before the committee in September, I asked about the accessibility of EV charging bays and, in particular, the PAS 1899 accessibility standard, because of my concern that Glasgow had only four accessible spaces out of 337 bays. Since then, there has been really positive news. For example, I am aware of the draft implementation plan, which was published in December and which specifically mentions accessibility provisions.

However, I would like some clarity, perhaps from officials if you do not have this information to hand. That draft plan says that the new bays should have

“a reasonable proportion of charge points”

that

“comply with ... PAS 1899”,

but it does not define what “a reasonable proportion” should be. It also says that “grantees” of Scottish Government funds should “demonstrate appropriate measures” in relation to implementing PAS 1899. Those with wheelchairs and other disabilities need larger, more appropriate bays in order to charge their EVs, and the charging points must be in the right places to ensure a fully accessible network.

Glasgow City Council has told me that its approach will be based on an equality impact assessment. We have 32 local authorities; this is a national network that is needed for all Scotland’s people; and I just wonder how the draft implementation plan will be delivered on the ground so that the Scottish people can be assured that there is a fully accessible network for all those who wish to drive electric vehicles.

Okay. Thank you.

That is very helpful, Mr Shanks. I look forward to the further information so that the committee can reflect on it in due course.

I thank the minister for attending the committee. I note the genuine goodwill that we sensed from the evidence session with the acting cabinet secretary last week in relation to the shared agenda between both Governments.

It is in that context that I want to look at some of the nuts and bolts around the LCM, in particular clause 6. Clause 5 would require consent from devolved Governments in relation to the statement of strategic priorities under which GB Energy would operate. However, clause 6 gives a quite substantial power of direction to the UK Government over GB Energy. At the moment, there is no provision to consult the Scottish Government in relation to that. I wonder whether that will be amended. If a UK Government wishes to direct GB Energy in a devolved space that links into the priorities in clause 5, should that not also require consent?

I thought that Mr Balfour made some very reasonable points. I would be a bit more concerned about the answers if it were not for the fact that the end-to-end delivery time appears to be improving. That is positive, but it was a challenging question from Mr Balfour, and quite rightly so.

Those improvements are based on staff delivering at the coalface. I want to look at support for staff and how they are faring. Looking at your staff survey for 2023, I can see that 59 per cent of staff think that they have all the information that they need to do a good job, and 64 per cent think that they have all the tools that they require to do a good job. I think that it is reasonable to say that the figures have come down quite substantially over the past couple of years. Why is that the case, and what is Social Security Scotland doing about it? Do you believe that the figures being down has impacted the delivery that Mr Balfour was talking about?

I am not seeking to contradict you, Mr Wallace, but the statistics contradict what you are saying. If staff are saying that they believe that they have less information and not enough tools, that is what staff are telling you. Is there a lack of confidence among staff due to the complexity? That is the only other explanation that I can think of. I am not trying to contradict you, but the staff are saying something different, and they will be listening to these exchanges.

I would like to have some concrete examples—due to time constraints, maybe not just now—of what you are doing as an organisation to support staff. I think that that would be helpful.

This is not my substantive question, but I noticed that 60 per cent of those who are working with clients, or who will soon be working with clients, feel confident about how to refer on for advice from other bodies and organisations. I am thinking about income maximisation and the discussions about how we maximise take-up of pension credit, which the cabinet secretary mentioned. I would hope that Social Security Scotland could assist with that. That figure means that 40 per cent of staff do not yet have that confidence around or expertise in signposting. Could you say a little bit more, or write to us, perhaps, about what more Social Security Scotland has to do to lift that number?

Finally, it would be remiss of the committee not to mention that we can see that over the past couple of years—I think up until September 2024—the whole-time equivalent staff absence figure appears to have gone from just under five days to 10 days. That is almost a doubling of staff absence, on average, over the course of a year. What is driving that, and how are you supporting staff in light of that quite worrying statistic?

I am looking at why the numbers may have dipped. I hope that they will increase again over the next couple of years as steps are taken to address the issue. Miriam, can you say a little bit about what steps Social Security Scotland is taking to work on that?

That is precisely what I was hoping to put on the record, given the committee’s challenges in making sure that we have effective scrutiny of all this and given the collegiate approach that we have taken on what was an expedited piece of legislation in the first place.

The budget reflects Government decisions. We heard your exchange with Douglas Lumsden. You also mentioned the allocation of £16 million of ScotWind money for agriculture, food and drink, £40 million for local priorities in relation to net zero, and £20 million for Orkney and Shetland. I want to put that on the record because there are many sectors that I have spoken about, including ground-source heat pumps and decarbonising the commercial sector or tourism or whatever. My point is that the committee recommended that the Government seek advice from the Scottish Fiscal Commission regarding the costs and benefits of various policies during the preparation of the next draft climate change plan. That is so that the committee can decide whether it agrees that the Government has prioritised appropriately, in the right sequence, for the maximum cost-benefit of the outcomes that we want in relation to our targets. What discussions have there been with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on that? I know that the cabinet secretary was considering that recommendation.