 Rhae srifyddoedd. Rhyon bwysig bod, mae'n cyfrnwysiau am rhai drwy sicrhau, ac yn gŵr attacking pethau sy'n gwybodaeth ar y dwbyn gyda'r cwmpas hynny. Ar y stylo'r cyfrnwysu ei ddagf помigau The portfolio is justice and veterans. If the member wishes to ask a supplementary question, I would like them to press the request-to-speak buttons and put the R on chat function among the relevant consideration. Question 1 has not been lodged at question number 2. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Ough, what do Scottish Government's responses to the OSCE report, policy responses to technology-facilitated trafficking in human beings and accompanying recommendations on action areas for the Parliament?но OSE report raises important questions about technology-facilitated human trafficking. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act 2015 provided police and prosecutors with greater powers to detect and prosecute perpetrators, including where offences are committed online. However, we keep the criminal law under continual review to ensure that it is effective. The regulation of internet and online service providers remains a reserved matter and we are continuing to liaise closely with the UK Government on its forthcoming online safety bill. I thank the minister for her response, recognising the horrific scale of the problem that online technology is used to lure, groom and exploit children and adults through exploitative images and threats and that 2021 was the worst-recorded year for online child abuse, does the minister see any devolved capacity for the Scottish Government to take forward recommendations in policy or legislative change, for example, in empowering law enforcement to efficiently investigate technology-facilitated trafficking or tackling the demand that fosters trafficking of women and children, such as banning pornography? I thank the member for that question. We will continue to explore all available options to reduce the prevalence of exploitation, including online. In Scotland, we will look specifically if there is more that we can do on that. I would like to offer the member an opportunity to have a meeting to possibly discuss that further. On 4 February 2022, the UK Government announced additional priority offences to be written on to the face of the UK online safety bill. We understand that that will include offences involving sexual exploitation. We think that that is a welcome move and it aims to make the internet hostile to pimps and human traffickers. Once we have more detail on the bill, we will consider it very carefully, especially in terms of the scope of the domestic model that we are developing to challenge men's demand for prostitution. A couple of brief supplementaries. First, I agree. Christian action has warned that processing a large number of Ukrainian refugee visas may miss some of the red flags that are usually used in vitting. I ask what discussions the cabinet secretary has had with either the UK Government officials, the NCA or, indeed, Police Scotland to ensure that no refugee who comes from Ukraine to Scotland becomes a victim of exploitation via serious organised criminal gangs or otherwise. I think that the member is absolutely right to raise this. We know that this could be a risk. There are a number of immediate measures that have been taken to respond to the crisis, including monitoring of online searches. There has been a spike in searches for Ukrainian women for sex and marriage that has been recorded. Translated information is being provided to fleeing Ukrainian nationals in country. That is informing them of their rights and their options. The temporary protection mechanism, which is established by the EU, also includes a temporary residence permit and access to the employment market. On 13 March, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe special representative co-ordinator for combating trafficking visited the Polish reception centres, looking to inform policy makers on how best to support those who are displaced and to prevent the risks of trafficking. Obviously, once refugees come into Scotland, we then need to look at risks and safeguarding there. It is great that so many Scots will potentially open up their homes as part of the UK Government's sponsorship scheme. We have some concerns about the matching process and we are certainly going to be looking—we do not have it at the moment, but we are looking for further information on the approach that is going to be taken in response to safeguarding, and I will update the chamber when we have more information on that. Trafficking gangs are motivated purely by profit. To end their cruel trade, we must disrupt the market. When will the Scottish Government take action in that regard by making it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, ending male demand by criminalising paying for sex so that Scotland is no longer a place where these criminal gangs can operate in plain sight on so-called adult services websites? Please Scotland will actively investigate all reports of sexual exploitation, and that includes online sexual exploitation. Precuring for the purposes of prostitution is still an offence, for example if it is committed online. We know that more needs to be done with the powers that are available to us to disrupt this activity and to shut down the routes to exploit people. We are committed to the development of a model for Scotland that effectively tackles and challenges men's demand for prostitution. The multi-agency working group considering the principles to underpin this model held its penultimate meeting yesterday. An emerging theme from their work, which I know that the member understands very well, is that advertising that happens online cannot be seen in isolation. It is synonymous with human trafficking and intersects with many other forms of gendered violence. We will take that into account as we design the model in consultation with stakeholders and we welcome the views of the cross-party working group on commercial sexual exploitation in this process. 3. Pam Duncan-Glanty To ask the Scottish Government what its response to the report on misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland published on International Women's Day, which calls for a misogyny bill in Scotland. Along with the First Minister who addressed the Parliament on International Women's Day, I welcomed the recommendations in the report and have thanked Baroness Helena Kennedy and the working group for their efforts over the past year. The work is pivotal in challenging society's tolerance of misogyny and sending a clear message that male attitudes, which emanate from prejudice and misogyny, have no place in a modern equal Scotland. We will now consider those recommendations and provide our response in due course with the benefit of time to examine them further. It is now incumbent upon the Scottish Government to examine those for the view to ensuring that any provisions recommended to Parliament are workable and can meet the expectations and intention behind the working group's report. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I welcome the Government's commitment to closely consider the recommendations in the report. This week, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has launched a campaign calling for men to take more responsibility for their actions and avoid acting as bystanders when their peers behave inappropriately towards women. Baroness Kennedy's report refers to women having to carry out safety work to protect themselves from the harmful behaviours of men, and the recommendations for new laws would still leave the onus on women to report an evidence male behaviour. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to run a similar campaign, and will it take any further action to reduce the burden of responsibility placed on women in their fights against misogyny? The member is absolutely right that the need for change in behaviour is on the part of men in relation to that. If she can take some comfort in her question from the way that we work with the police to ensure that, when they came up with a protocol after the Sarah Everard case, that protocol was designed to take the onus away from women to have to change their behaviour and put it on to the police officers, I think that we will concentrate throughout this process, and it will take some time because the member will be aware that this is a new departure for legislation in terms that it specifies women, which we have not done before, for example, in domestic abuse act. Throughout this process, and wherever we end up, we will consistently point to the fact that it is men that have to change their behaviour here. As to campaigns—again, we will look at that as time goes on—we would want to do that in conjunction with legislation, of course, where that was necessary, but the message will remain the same. I am sure that the member would agree that the need for change here is on the part of men. If we get to the stage of having legislation on the statute book, it will have, of course, a practical effect—it will be an offence—that will also have a symbolic effect to say that those things should not be permitted. The point that the member makes about men as bystanders is that, being the people who should step up and say that that is wrong, especially at what might be termed low-level misogyny, which can often lead to other things, I think that the law itself can be a symbol for that change, and that is what we intend. I ask the cabinet secretary what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that misogyny within politics will not negatively affect or delay policymaking in this area. It is a very important point that the member raises. There is, of course, a need for caution for any Government to prescribe how political debates and discourse are conducted, but we are all in Government and not in Government public representatives, and we all have an individual duty to watch our behaviour in relation to that and try to make sure that, again, in common with a point made by the previous member, where things are done they are called out by people. For our part, the Government is currently considering the working group's recommendations, which have garnered a lot of support in principle from public stakeholders and politicians. The work is pivotal in challenging society's tolerance of misogyny, in particular men's tolerance of misogyny. I hope that the Parliament will work with the Government. We are all, as I say, public representatives to meet the expectations and the intention behind the working group's report. I am Beasley Slyther. Does the Scottish Government consider that, in light of the recommendations from Baroness Kennedy and the working group, a cross-party commission on the prevention of violence against women and girls has merit in ensuring that misogyny and violence against women are addressed holistically? Of course, we all want to keep an open mind, and the member has made that suggestion before, but there is quite a substantial degree of activity on going currently. For example, the minister has an overarching responsibility to take forward issues relating to violence against women and girls within Government. We have, of course, a number of pieces of legislation that are going to address us directly, which they have led to the establishment of other working groups. We will keep that in mind, but I do not think that there is any way in which the Government could be described as not taking this issue seriously if it can be bolstered by other innovations such as the one that the member suggests. I am happy to consider that further. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour on Scotland's railways. The pandemic presented unprecedented challenges across Scotland's railways, including increased antisocial behaviour. As we recover, British transport police data show that offences of this nature have been reducing since last October. British transport police work closely with partners on joint initiatives to deter crime on the railway. For example, Operation Safer Shores and Operation Ballotin both safely manage high volumes of passengers to Balak and Ayrshire during the holiday periods. The transport minister has discussed those concerns in recent meetings with trade unions and her officials' liais with the Safer Transport Strategic Group, led by the British Transport Police. I note the transport minister's comments to the transport committee today that legislation might be required to tackle antisocial behaviour. However, it is clear that we have to deal with the problem that is in front of us just now. Indeed, in my West Scotland region, there has been a concerning and consistent trend of extreme violence, particularly between teenage girls on the railway. It is clear that staff need better support, and we must ensure that ticket offices are protected, and staffing indeed increased to ensure safer railways. What is clear is that the minister would provide assurance that there will be consultation with the British Transport Police at MTIs and other trade unions about how we can get the solutions that we need right now. Assaults, either verbal or physical on staff, are completely unacceptable. Although it is no consolation to those staff, the member has rightly suggested that they are impacted by behaviour of those types in Scotland, they make up about 3.6 per cent of the total staff assaults on the UK rail network. Physical assaults on staff members have remained consistent throughout the year with only slight fluctuations month by month. The offending is sporadic and follows no pattern in terms of location, offenders or timings. However, as I mentioned in my previous answer, there is some multi-agency working going on here in order to address the type of offending to put resources into the right areas in order to look at that. The member also mentioned work about potential particular passengers and then presenting problematic time after time again and whether that is something that could be looked at. My understanding is that that option will be explored further as part of the work on safety on public transport. However, I would ask my colleague the minister for transport to perhaps speak to the member directly on this issue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister will be aware that I have brought partners together to discuss and try to put some solutions in place to help. One of the lines in Inverclyde and one of the issues that has come up is the number of officers in the British Transport Police. What consideration has been given to increasing the number of British Transport Police officers on Scotland Railway to help to prevent anti-social behaviour? I thank the member for raising the issue and for the work that he has been doing personally to try to address it. We are aware of concerns about an increase in criminal behaviour on trains, particularly from the rail unions and employees who often experience that type of behaviour themselves directly. Clearly, we need to ensure that there are appropriate ways of addressing and preventing such behaviour, but policing on the railways is, however, a reserved matter. As such, resources are governed by the British Transport Police Association, with ScotRail contributing towards the costs and Scottish interests being fed in through the Scottish Railways Policing Committee. ScotRail has a police service agreement with the British Transport Police to secure their services on the railway in Scotland. Scottish ministers meet the British Transport Police Association and the British Transport Police regularly to raise issues of interest, such as tackling anti-social behaviour and women's safety with them. Can the minister say any more about any potential legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour on the railways? When are we likely to see any proposals and will it form part of a wider bill? My understanding is that the option is just currently at the very early stages of being explored, and it is part of the wider work that the Minister for Transport is taking forward on safety on public transport. I will ask the minister for transport to speak to the member and perhaps she is able to give the member an updated timetable. The recruitment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable, who considers the size and shape of the policing workforce in light of changing demands. The latest figures show that there were 17,117 police officers in Police Scotland as at 31 December 2021. The current Scottish Government statistics show that we currently have around 32 officers per 10,000 population, compared with around 23 per 10,000 population in England and Wales. In January, I asked the cabinet secretary what the police officer's base level in Fourth Valley was, and he responded that he did not know. The base level is the minimum level of police that is available to respond to calls in any area. I asked the same question in a freedom of information request to Police Scotland asking about base operational levels when they were last reviewed and how many times it fell below the safe level. Those questions were refused on the grounds of being expensive or being unsafe to publish. If the cabinet secretary does not know and Police Scotland will not tell, how can we have any assurance that the number of police who are available to respond to calls on the front line in any way is adequate? What is he doing to make sure that there are enough police to respond to emergency and non-emergency calls? One thing that we are doing is sticking with the idea that the police are independent of Government and they should be the ones to respond to configurations of police officers to respond to the threats that he said. Unless he is looking for direct control of Government policing, which, of course, is quite possible in the case under the Conservatives, or it may well be just that saving care is so embarrassed by the one example of Tories in Government policing where they fail to fund police numbers—I know he does not want to hear it, but he does not want to hear about police pay in the way that the Tories treat police pay, or where they want to hear about Tories—is the Tory Prime Minister that does not think that fraud is a real crime? Can we have a bit more decorum? We have listened to the question in silence, so let us listen to the answer by and large in silence, cabinet secretary. Just to say that it may be that the environment is caused because the Conservatives have one example where they have control of Government and their record on policing is lamentable, whether it is in terms of police numbers, whether it is in terms of police pay, or even in terms of their attitude to crime where their Prime Minister says that fraud is not really a crime when it should not count as part of the figures. It is embarrassment that has led to this question. He should ask the police, and he should allow the police to do their job. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how many schools in Scotland have a campus police officer? Of course, that is a matter for the police. The information, as I have said to the previous member, is not held centrally by the Scottish Government. However, the use and the funding of campus officers who I would agree can sometimes make a fantastic difference in schools is a matter for Police Scotland and, in that case, for the local authority to decide. Cabinet Secretary, what the increase of decrease in police numbers has been in Scotland since 2007 and how that compares with south of the border where Mr Kerr's party has now been in office for 12 years? Again, I hear some unwillingness to hear the answer, but the answer is that Scotland has a higher number of officers than at any time during the previous administration, while in England and Wales, officer numbers fell by almost 20,000 in 2017 and remain over 4,000 lower than in 2007. That is the Tories for you. Question 6, and question 7, have been withdrawn. Question 8, Rachel Hamilton. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the most recent Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service court backlog figures. I meet regularly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to discuss both their monthly and quarterly official stats on criminal case activity in Scotland and how we can continue to tackle the backlog that is built up as a consequence of the pandemic. The statistics remain that the pandemic has had a significant impact on our justice sector, just as it has had on every other sector in Scotland. What is important is that we have a plan and strategy in place, including an extra £53.2 million for our justice recovery fund in 2022-23 to move matters forward, recognising that unnecessary delays are not in the best interests of victims, witnesses and the accused. Rachel Hamilton. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but stats released last month showed that there was a backlog of 43,606 trials in Scotland, the highest on record. David Fraser of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service told the Justice Committee that this backlog could take until 2026 to clear. That means that victims of crime are waiting years for the opportunity to seek justice. I absolutely understand the pressure that the courts have been under as a result of the pandemic, but the stats show that the government is now spiralling out of control. We have heard from Keith Brown how the government intends to tackle the backlog, but, whilst it does, can the cabinet secretary confirm what specific measures are being put in place to support victims of crime, whilst they endure an unprecedented weight for a trial as a result of the Government's inability to get a grip of the situation? Given the seriousness of the situation that has just been outlined, you would have thought that the UK Government would recognise that in the Grant settlement to the Scottish Government. However, no, what we have is a situation in which they say that Covid is over. We know, and the member's question suggests that she knows, that Covid is not over. Of course, we have allocated £53.2 million to doing this. It includes things such as 16 additional courts. We are taking the measures, but we know, especially in relation to health and justice, that, unlike the Tories, the pandemic and its effects are not over. Therefore, we are tackling it. In relation to victims that I have mentioned before in the chamber and I am happy to provide more information to Rachael Hamilton on the additional funding that we have provided to rich victims organisations to help victims, it is only a shame that the only people who do not seem to recognise how bad the situation is and, of course, it is substantially worse than England and Wales are the Tory Government that she is allied to. To ask the Scottish Government what funding was made available to tackle the court backlog. I have mentioned the £50 million last year, the £53 million this year. That included, as I have said, setting up 16 additional solemn and summary courts from September. We have also established a justice recovery fund of £53.2 million in the next financial year, and that is to help to recover, renew and transform activity across the justice system as we emerge from the pandemic. Just to correct a point that was made previously, of course there are delays that were being told by the court service to take up to 2026. That does not mean that cases currently being called will wait till that time. It does mean that the pandemic will have had an effect that will continue right through to 2025, in some cases, in 2026. It is only a shame that that was not recognised in the grant settlement from the UK Government. Why does the cabinet secretary believe that we have the highest number of prisoners in prison in Scotland and the highest number on remand in Western Europe? In relation to remand, I think that both the member, her party and other parties in the chamber have acknowledged the extent to which the pandemic has led to substantially increase numbers on remand. However, there is a point that lies behind the member's question that Scotland has had more people on remand than the past and has had more people in prison than the past. I refer both to the justice vision that was recently produced that seeks to address that and some of the forthcoming legislation that is going through Parliament that seeks to address the point that she has rightly made about the numbers of people on remand. The Liberal Democrats have made that point as well, as have others in the chamber, and we are seeking to address that. I hope that she will find herself in a party table to support those measures, because we have to drive down the numbers of people on remand and the numbers of people in prison as well. Thank you. That concludes Justice Portfolio Questions. It is now time to move on to the next portfolio, which is finance and the economy. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary, and I know that a number of colleagues want to ask a supplementary if they could press the request-to-speak buttons or place an R in the chat function in order to get through the questions and the supplementaries that would be helpful if the questions and responses were as brief as possible. I call question number one, Brian Whittle. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that Scotland's economy has a workforce ready to make the most of opportunities that the transition to net zero and the wider low-carbon economy can offer. I thank the member for the question. The Scottish Government is undertaking significant action through the climate emergency skills action plan to equip individuals with the skills and training to meet the needs of his net zero economy. We launched the green jobs workforce academy in August 2021 to support the retraining and upskilling needed for the transition to net zero. We have provided nearly £900,000 through our national transition training fund for energy efficiency retrofit skills. We will also be establishing a green jobs and skills hub that will cascade intelligence into the skills system on the numbers and types of green jobs that will be needed over the next 25 years. Brian Whittle, I thank the minister for that answer, but to hit the Government targets on heating homes, you are going to have to install a total of 1 million domestic heat pumps and 50,000 business heat pumps between the years 2025 and 2030. Can I ask how the Scottish Government is ensuring that Scotland has enough trained engineers to hit those targets and how will the estimated cost of £33 billion be met? I thank the member for the question. As I outlined in my previous answer, there are four significant pathways under way to upskill workers in Scotland to provide the green jobs that we need. Our green jobs fund is a five-year £100 million capital fund that will support businesses and their supply chains to help them better transition to a low-carbon economy. So far more than 50 projects have been approved for funding. That amounts to £12.3 million of funding, with 850 full-time jobs to be created and safeguarded from that. Is that the scheme that will be working towards providing the work that is necessary to do the upgrade to Scotland's homes and buildings? The reality is something different. The Government has known for years that the energy offshore wind farm was coming, yet only eight of the 54 jackets are being built here, and the majority of workers on those jackets are not even from Scotland. Why was the Government not ready? Why on earth did it not train enough workers to build these jackets? I thank the member for the question. Having worked in the offshore industry myself, I know the challenges of getting the skilled workers and of getting them in the right place at the right time to deliver those advanced manufacturing projects. We will be working towards improving the situation with the national transition training fund. In one year already, the national transition training fund has succeeded in helping people by providing support for over 9,000 individuals. Those systems that we are putting into place now will ensure the skilled workers for the future. To ask the Scottish Government how much of and through what application process the Covid economy economic recovery fund will be allocated to east of partnership council. As part of our £80 million Covid economic recovery fund, east of partnership council will receive £1.63 million that will be transferred as a general revenue grant in the last two weeks of March. That fund is intended for interventions towards local economic recovery and targeted support for low-income and vulnerable households. Councils, including east of partnership, will have full discretion over how to target that support to maximise economic recovery in their areas, and consider the needs of local businesses, communities and households. I thank the minister for that answer. Last month, it was announced that the Tory Lib Dem Coalition at east of partnership council was the only council in Scotland who applied late for funding to support older and disabled residents to meet the costs of new fire alarms. Can the minister confirm that if guidance will be produced on the use of the fund to ensure that it is used to help with Covid recovery? I thank the minister for the supplementary funding. I reassure her that funding will be transferred to local authorities as a general revenue grant. It is for councillors to decide how to use the funding to help with local economic recovery from the pandemic. However, my officials have worked with COSLA to agree a set of guiding principles for the use of the fund, which will ensure that it supports businesses, communities and low-income households. Instead of my original answer, east of partnership council will have full discretion over how to target that support to maximise economic recovery and consider local need. Flexibility of the fund ensures that councils can provide support where they know that the need is greatest, and that has been welcomed by COSLA. I welcome the allocation of Covid recovery funds to East Dunbartonshire Council. However, the council commission reports that councils have experienced 4.2 per cent real-term cuts between 2013-14 and 2020-21 when they exclude Covid funding. The long-term funding position for councils remains uncertain. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that when Covid funding ends, local governments can meet increasing demand from the service users? We have had to set our budget in this financial year in the context of what the SNC has identified as a 5.2 per cent real-terms cut to our budget from the UK Government. In that context, we have still provided a real-terms increase for local government, and we will continue to ensure that local government receives a fair settlement as part of the budget process. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on the Scottish budget in light of reports that UK Government funding consequentials relating to the cost of living may not be provided in addition to provisional allocations. The chancellor announced that we would receive £296 million of consequentials in relation to the cost of living crisis. Following confirmation of the final 2021-22 UK supplementary estimate figures, we were informed that that was being funded out of a reduction in the previously expected uplift in health expenditure. Clearly, the net effect of that will be to have overall less money than we were expecting following the announcement of measures to support the cost of living. Once again, the UK Government has made great fanfare of announcing additional consequential funding for Scotland, then quietly conceding later on that there will not be any additional money after all. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the considerable difficulty that this creates for the Scottish Government in terms of managing a fixed budget? Does she agree that this is an utterly irresponsible way to manage public finances? The member who talks about the impact in the Scottish Government should also talk about the impact on the Scottish Parliament. As members will be aware, the funding position moved on an almost daily basis in January, with figures not formally confirmed until supplementary estimates were published on 22 February. That is just over five weeks from the end of the financial year. During that period of time, I quite rightly updated the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee on the financial position so that Parliament could have all the facts and figures in order to scrutinise that, only for that position to be out of date due to that on-going volatility. It is an issue that should be of concern to the Parliament, as much as it is of concern to the Government, and it certainly significantly undermines our ability to plan ahead. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received an additional £290 million from the UK Government to support households facing financial difficulties as a result of the reported cost-of-living crisis. As I said in my previous question answer, we have received the net impact, which is less than what we would have received if that £296 million had been additional. I know that she meets and her ministers meet with Westminster ministers and officials on a regular basis. I wonder whether she can share with us whether she thinks that Westminster is taking on board our concerns that, when they make an announcement, as my colleague said, they should tell us whether it is new money or not. I will be meeting again with my counterpart, the chief secretary, on Monday. As always, I look forward to those meetings. That is a persistent and pervasive problem. We have raised it on numerous occasions with Treasury in the past. Treasury officials do their best in providing us with estimates, but there is an inherent volatility in those figures until they are formally confirmed. The difficulty is, of course, when funding is announced by the UK Government. There are immediate calls, particularly in the chamber, across Opposition parties for us to spend it immediately. Although I recognise the importance of getting money out the door quickly, we also have to make sure that that funding is additional, it is new and that there is more money in the bank to pay out, which is a core part of our prudent management of Scotland's finances. The UK Government's failure to follow through in its promise of additional funding and the mitigations provided by the Scottish Government highlight a commitment to providing the additional support that people need, but we know that that will only go so far. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Tory cost of living crisis is hugely concerning and that the position of our political opposition to either tell Scotland to eat its cereal or to ask for increases in spending without stating where they should be cuts is simply not sustainable and that, in fact, the only rational decision is for Scotland to be a normal, independent country? The member is right to point to the fact that other normal, independent Governments are able to respond without one arm tied behind their back. If you look at what is driving the cost of living crisis in terms of inflation, energy prices and so on, all of those are reserved powers over which we have minimal control. Where we can go further, we have gone further, for example doubling the Scottish child payment, but we can only ever do that within a fixed budget that under the UK Government has been subject to a decade of austerity. I encourage members not to be shouting their own answers and questions across the chamber while the cabinet secretary is speaking. That is on both sides of the chamber, Ms Graham. Question number four, Christine Grahame. Accused but not guilty, I plead to ask the Scottish Government what representation it has made to the UK Government regarding reducing VAT and fuel to help to mitigate increases in the cost of living for households in Scotland. You were pointing when the music stopped, Ms Grahame. Cabinet Secretary? Well, we are acutely aware of the very serious cost of living pressures that are affecting so many in Scotland and beyond. Mr Matheson, my Cabinet colleague, wrote to the UK Government on 10 January asking for a reduction in VAT on household energy bills to provide some form of short-term relief, but to no avail. Since then, the horrific events in Ukraine and Russia's unprovoked aggression have caused fuel prices to rise exponentially and have added to the pressures facing households. Although VAT policy control is reserved to the UK Government, we will do whatever we can to urge that all policy levers are considered. As I said, I have another meeting with the chief secretary on Monday to press this case. I thank the cabinet secretary's answer, so I have a suggestion for the cabinet secretary's meeting. Without giving the chamber a headache, which I gave myself, so I am not disclosing my workings, I have calculated that if we take fuel costs at £1.63 per litre at the pump, a 30-litre tank costs nearly £82. Of that, nearly £29 is fuel duty with a further £13 or so VAT, which is levied on the raw costs plus the fuel duty, doubling the pump price, £42 in tax that goes straight to the Treasury. Would the cabinet secretary agree with me that the elephant in the room is fuel duty and that, in these extreme times, it would not be a bad idea for the Treasury to waive fuel duty for a period saving our public services, the NHS, the police and so on, in inflationary fuel costs, reducing transport costs, which are inflating fuel prices and, of course, are increasing energy bills, both commercial and domestic. I praise Christine Grahame's mental arithmetic in the chamber this afternoon and would agree that fuel duty is significantly contributing to the cost of fuel. The impact of the cost of living crisis is profound on households, indeed on businesses and also on public services, as Christine Grahame referenced. I think that we need to do all that we can at this moment in time to ease the burden of being faced by citizens, businesses and public services alike, and we absolutely need the UK Government, who are fully responsible for all aspects of energy, policy, regulation and taxation, to do what they can, and they certainly need them to do more than they have announced to date. I thank the cabinet secretary for indicating what discussion she and the Scottish Government have had with the UK Government about standardising fuel pump prices, so that consumers are not faced with a postcode lottery that prices differ across the country. I think that the member raises a really relevant issue, and particularly as someone who represents a rural area of Scotland, we see the disproportionate impact in some parts of the country. As I have assured Stuart McMillan's colleagues, I will assure him that I will pursue all avenues to ease the burden on households across Scotland. I will bear that suggestion in mind when I speak to the UK Government next week, because all the levers relating to fuel and energy are reserved. To ask the Scottish Government what financial support it provides to Glasgow businesses that have been impacted by a loss of earnings as a result of street closures due to a variety of recent projects. It is an important question that Pauline McNeill has asked. Financial support for businesses experiencing a loss of earning as a result of road closures is very much a matter for the local authority to consider, because it provides the licences for such projects. However, I imagine that in her follow-up question she will be more specific and perhaps I can give a more specific answer. Pauline McNeill Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will be more specific. The enroads in Glasgow city centre were closed off early this year ahead of filming the new back-girl movie, but the filming is said to have decimated trade for many businesses who, as you are aware, struggled after lockdown and quite severe restrictions over Christmas. To one owner of a bar in restaurants said that they had lost up to 10,000 worth of business. To another one, a clothing shop closed for a week due to the low footfall because of road closures. They were offered £30 a day for one of brothers, and the city council offered an incentive to the production company of 150,000. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is wrong to offer financial incentive to production companies without making adequate compensation conditional on ensuring that businesses are adequately compensated for losses in trade? Surely, cabinet secretary, as we try to recover from this pandemic, that would be a very important principle to ensure that those businesses have a chance to recover. Will the cabinet secretary be very conscious of the impact on businesses, particularly the ones that she has referenced in her question on top of everything else that they are contending with post Covid and with the cost of living? In terms of my previous answer, I am very conscious that Glasgow City Council has made a comment on that. I would certainly expect both the council and the production companies to listen carefully to businesses, to engage with them and to determine what more can be done to support them. The two mechanisms that I would reference in terms of where support might be forthcoming in order to help all businesses affected would be the Covid recovery fund, which has been provided to local authorities and the Glasgow City Centre recovery fund, which they will receive as part of the £6 million that I announced just a fortnight ago. Glasgow's tax drivers have also been brutally impacted by lost earnings. The industry is on its knees with warnings over a cab blackout in Glasgow. Cabbies are now facing further uncertainty with the proposed introduction of the low emissions zones in 2023. Can the Scottish Government reiterate what action it is taking to ensure essential support is available for Glasgow's cab drivers? I fully agree with the member about the impact on taxi drivers throughout the pandemic, knowing that they often feel the brunt of any closures or impacts on hospitality. We have delivered a third grant to taxi drivers over and above the previous two grants. I have always been clear that no amount of grant funding compensates for loss of earnings, but it provides an element of support, and local authorities have been paying that out. It would be my sincere hope that all taxi drivers that are eligible have now received that. I will take a further supplementary from Rona Mackay, but it needs to be brief, as does the response. Rona Mackay. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to help to drive up footfall in our towns and city centres? The question that the member asks goes right to the heart of this. In our city centres, we need more people, and we have announced two schemes. The city centre recovery fund, £6 million, and the economic recovery fund of £80 million, which is entirely up to local authorities to spend in order to drive up that footfall and support local businesses. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the number of low-income households that will not be eligible for the £150 payment to help to tackle the rising cost of living. I remind the chamber that the £150 payment is not the only way in which we are helping to tackle the rising cost of living, not least having passed a budget that doubled the Scottish child payment. As I said at the budget, using the council tax system is the quickest and the simplest way to reach those, for whom the payment will make a difference, and 73 per cent of all households in Scotland will receive that. Importantly, every household in receipt of council tax reduction, which is one way of capturing those who are most in need, will also receive the payment. I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer. A new study by Energy Action Scotland has revealed that, as many as 211,000 additional people in Scotland, a 43 per cent rise from 2019 are sexual victim to full poverty this year. Almost all of them in households from already low incomes. Is not it correct that the system proposed by the Scottish Government, which distributes payment via council tax banding, will spread support far too thinly and that low-income households will proportionally suffer as a result and not receive the targeted support that they need? It is right to identify those figures, and it is hugely concerning that they rise in the energy cap will plunge more people who are already classified as fuel poor into extreme fuel poverty and those who are not in fuel poverty into fuel poverty. In terms of the support that we have provided, we have also provided £10 million for those at greatest risk of self-disconnection or those who are rationing their energy usage more. However, I would again remind the member that this sits alongside the low-income pandemic payment, the Scottish child payment, the bridging payments, continued funding to mitigate the UK bedroom tax, the winter support fund, increased support in the Scottish welfare fund, as well as supporting debt and welfare advice services across the country. All of that is designed to help those who are really struggling right now, and none of those policies should be considered in isolation of the overall package. The £150 will be a great help to many households, but would the cabinet secretary agree with me that it would be more helpful to low-income households if the UK Government restored universal credit and cancelled its national insurance increase? I couldn't agree more that ultimately not only should we provide additional financial help to households in the form that we've set out already, but we should ensure that it's targeted, and universal credit would be one way of more effectively targeting it. In absence of that, the Scottish Government has stepped up and is providing additional support from our own budget as a result of the UK Government's failure to do so. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of removing rates relief for businesses after the first quarter of 2022-23. Many thousands of small businesses will continue to benefit from the UK's most generous small business bonus scheme, something that the FSB has called a lifeline, which takes more than 111,000 properties out of rates altogether. We are extending retail hospitality and leisure relief by offering 50 per cent relief for the first three months of 2022-23, a capta at £27,500 per rate there, following two years of 100 per cent rates relief, offering certainty when businesses needed it most. RHL businesses in England started paying rates in July 2021, while their equivalents in Scotland currently don't pay a penny. Alexander Burnett I thank the minister for that answer. The phrase of RHL was very critical, but the information held on businesses was not fit for purpose through either giving support or evaluating results. During Covid, we heard from businesses who have been disadvantaged due to differences between local authorities, as North East businesses facing crippling rates significantly higher than those in the central belt. Can the minister confirm what steps he is taking to ensure future guidelines, the data collection management and eligibility criteria are consistent across local authorities and assessors? I thank Mr Burnett for his supplementary note to take this opportunity to welcome the thorough report that was undertaken by Fraser of Allander Institute. Of course, a small business bonus scheme has been a tremendous success, and it has been very much welcomed by businesses the length and breadth of Scotland over the past decade and a half. It is also important to recognise that what the report says is that it is not saying that the small business bonus scheme did not have any effect, but it does identify data limitations, and that is something that we are considering and reflecting on closely, and I will be happy to update Mr Burnett in Parliament in due course. A very brief supplementary and brief response to Jackie Dunbar. It is welcome that the Scottish budget maintains the UK's most generous small business bonus scheme. Can the minister provide an update as to the number of properties that this is expected to be taken out of rates altogether? Over the last 14 years, Scotland's business communities had to wear a global financial crisis a decade of UK Government austerity breaks at a global pandemic and spiralling energy costs. During this time, we are proud to have supported over 111,000 small businesses with rates relief at up to 100 per cent, saving them thousands of pounds per year. A needs small business bonus scheme has saved rate bears over £2.5 billion since 2008. Thank you, minister. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.