 Felly, felly y ddefnyddio gyda'i cyffredinol, mae'r cyfrifolio cyfrifolio y gyrraeth, ddawb yn ein cyfrifolio gyda dri a energiolaeth. Rwy'n symud線ol gyntafau thatddiu mewn cyfrddinol three ac sydd wedi'i gweld isio gan dwylo ac rwy'n cael ei wneud ei ddoch chi i iechyd gyfägau wasgstyn a wneud hynny, ac rwy'n ei ddoch chi wedi ei wneud, ddidd애igau dylai, yn fwyno'r cyfrifolio gyntaf fod yn y separate cyfrifolio. A Camell, I ask the Scottish Government what analysis is undertaken to measure the extent of economic inactivity in Scotland post Covid-19 pandemic. Cabinet Secretary, Maire McCalland? The Scottish Government routinely analyses labour market data despite challenging conditions. The labour market remains resilient, with near record payrolled employee numbers in February this year. Scotland's inactivity rate was 22.1 percent inoctobir 2022-23. Rydyn ni wedi gwneud gan rychlwp y pre-pandemic, rydyn ni'n g marryd. ONS data ynánu i ddim yn wirio cyfle oherwydd risiwch am yr ysgolwedd, i ddim yn wirio cyfle oherwydd risiwch am yr ysgolwedd a'r ysgolwedd a'r rhwng o'r ardal, ond weithio caw i rhai addysg oherwydd mwyn iddo i unrhyw gwaith i ysgolwedd, apodol, adrodd, ysgolwedd i ysgolwedd, arddig, ysgolwedd, ysgolwedd i'r amddig. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. She'll know that, two years ago, her colleague John Swinney identified economic connectivity as the biggest challenge facing the Scottish economy and that's something that I entirely agree with. Since that time, economic connectivity has remained stubbornly high in Scotland. Can the cabinet secretary explain in a little more detail what policies the Scottish Government is enacting to try to address this problem, particularly as that economic connectivity is higher than it is elsewhere? The inactivity rate in the economy remains a very important part of the Government's approach to our economic prosperity. It's in our national strategy for economic transformation that I'm currently working to refresh. Of course there's a number of reasons, as my initial answer alluded to, why there may be an activity in the labour market, not least study care, retirement and ill health. However, I am determined, and I have set this out in a number of fora recently, to tackle that high number. In particular, through our employability work, £90 million has been dedicated to this in the coming year. Of course there are other policies we're pursuing which support this. One that's very important to me and that I would take the opportunity to highlight to the chamber today is childcare, with Scotland being the only part of the UK to offer 1,140 hours of funded ALC per year to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. That sits alongside the work that we've been doing with Public Health Scotland to understand the barriers that ill health, both physical and mental, can create to having work and sustaining work and the combination of all of those, I hope, will drive down that inactivity rate. On that issue of childcare, the Scottish Women's Budget Group recent childcare survey found that 55 per cent said that the challenges managing childcare was impacting on their ability to do work. In my constituency, after-school provision has closed the newbara and the newport, causing further problems for working parents. So what further pressure is the minister putting on her educational colleagues to make sure that more is done, particularly for wraparound care and after-school provision? I appreciate the crux of Willie Rennie's question and I did just narrate the present offer, so I won't do that again, but it's worth noting that it's been in place since 2021. If families had paid for this themselves, it would cost around £5,800 per eligible child per year. The results of the 2022 parent survey are in some ways encouraging, indicating that 74 per cent of parents report that accessing 1140 hours has enabled them to work or to look for work, but I do agree with Willie Rennie that there is a strong case to expand access to funded childcare, particularly for families in the lowest incomes, those furthest away from the labour market. I am beginning to work to develop an expanded national offer for more families with two-year-olds, focusing on those who will benefit most. As Willie Rennie correctly points out, that is very much a cross-government objective. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will share Labour's concerns that the numbers are rising particularly among younger people in economic inactivity. Given that habits are formed between the ages of 18 and 24 that can guide people's participation in the labour market for a significant part of their life, what concerted effort is the Government undertaking to understand the causes of that change in behaviour for younger people? I do not disagree with that at all. I would quote some of the most recent data among 16 to 24-year-olds. The most common reason for inactivity is being a student with 77.9 per cent of those who presented as inactive. That being the reason followed by, as Mr Marra notes, inactivity due to being long-term sick. I am reluctant and I will not generalise the reasons that people find themselves economically inactive. I think that data speaks to some of them. However, I am very clear how important that employability work is that the Government is doing. That is why I am pleased that, despite very challenging financial circumstances, we have managed to back those package of measures with £90 million in the coming year. Of course, that sits alongside really important work to understand what creates difficulty in ill health and respective mental and physical health. I should say that it is not just about working with those who are inactive themselves, but working with employers to make sure that the right conditions are in place, including the flexibility of work, to make sure that people can have work and sustain it. Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support the creation of new jobs at the Chapelcross site near Arran. Minister Lorna Slater. Through the Borderlands Inclusive Growth deal, the Scottish Government has committed £7.5 million to unlock the potential of the former nuclear site at Chapelcross. That investment will deliver a strategic investment site for low-carbon energy generation and energy-efficient businesses. The project is part of the Borderlands plan to create high-value jobs supporting low-carbon energy generation and carbon reduction schemes. South of Scotland Enterprise has also purchased 17 acres of land adjacent to the main Chapelcross site to accelerate access and infrastructure development and is actively working with inward investors expressing interest in the site. I thank the minister for that answer. As she references, part of the site is now available in the hands of South of Scotland Enterprise. I have been working hard alongside a cross-party group of local MSPs to support a company reblaid, who are interested in setting up a wind turbine recycling hub on that site. I have raised it before and there was a change of Cabinet Secretary, but I wondered whether the minister would be interested in meeting with those MSPs to see what more can be done to make sure that project becomes a reality. I thank the member very much for his work and the work of his colleagues on this. I am happy to meet the member and the colleagues, and I know that the Minister for Energy is content to do so if he can contact her office to make arrangements. Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the importance of Presswick Airport as a strategic asset for Ayrshire and for Scotland. Glasgow Presswick Airport is an asset of strategic importance to Ayrshire and, indeed, to Scotland. It directly employs 300 staff and supports a growing cluster of aerospace businesses who have created several thousand skilled jobs in South Ayrshire. The value that we place on Presswick Airport is clear from the Scottish Government's decision in 2013 to take the airport into public ownership. I should say that, thanks to the hard work of the board, management and the employees at the site, the airport is now consistently profitable and can look to its future with confidence. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. She is well aware that it was the Government that saved Presswick Airport and the jobs there, bringing certainty to the wider aerospace industry, too. All that, despite claims from the Tories that it was a failure, money wasted and, in fact, should be closed. Can the cabinet secretary give me, in the thousands of workers associated with this strategic airport, an assurance that any possible future sale will ensure that all its current activities are maintained and developed in the years to come? The Presswick Airport is the hub of an innovative aerospace cluster in Ayrshire. Therefore, it was vital that we intervened to secure its future, along with the thousands of jobs that it is absolutely right to narrate. I want to stress again that the airport is now consistently profitable. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber will welcome the contribution that that brings to its region. The terms of any sale of Presswick Airport will be a matter for negotiation between relevant parties. I have been clear that any decision to sell must be guided by what is in the best interest of taxpayers at Glasgow Presswick Airport and, of course, the Ayrshire economy. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the former chairman of Presswick Airport resigned his post to lead a bid to purchase the airport. Following receipt of an expression of interest from First South Black, it was mutually agreed that he should step back from the role of chairman of the board of Glasgow Presswick Airport to ensure that an independent and fair assessment can be made. During First South Black's time as chair of Presswick Airport, various expressions of interest were made to his board. None were recommended to the Scottish Government and business bidders reported a lack of willingness to engage from airport management. Now, after suddenly leaving his post in February, Mr Black emerges leading a new bid. Does the cabinet secretary consider it acceptable for the former chair to take his financial and operational knowledge of the airport, which is certainly beyond what is publicly accessible, and his knowledge of all the content of previous bids, which ministers have declined to detail on grounds of commercial sensitivity and lead the bid? Does he agree with me that that represents an unfair advantage that should preclude the bid from going forward? It was mutually agreed by both parties that Mr Black should step back in order to ensure a fair and independent process that will now prevail. It refers to previous bids in late March 2023. The board of GPA was approached by a party expressing an interest in acquiring the airport. The board considered the expression of interest, and drawing on independent advice from commercial advisers provided advice to ministers not to proceed due to the high risk of transaction failure. All expressions of interest will be fairly independent assessed and ultimately decided by ministers, with potential buyers for the airport providing a clear pathway for the airport and an ability to demonstrate that they have the financial experience in order to make it a success. The future of Prestwick airport needs to be viewed in the broader context. I was wondering if the cabinet secretary would give her reaction to the report authored by Duncan Maclellan and commissioned by Edinburgh airport, which asserts that policy making has viewed airports too narrowly as consumers of energy and in narrow economic terms. It needs to view them in more spatial and connectivity and their broader role in the economy. I will try to, in that particular context, again stress what I have done already today. First, that the airport is consistently profitable. Secondly, that it is an aerospace hub and that it plays a very important part in contributing to the Ayrshire region and to Scotland's national economy. However, we absolutely have to work on future proofing our airports and, certainly combining my economy and net zero interests, I am very clear that sustainable aviation fuel and the development thereof is a key part of that. Prior to leaving my transport post, one of the last things I did was to commission a working group on sustainable aviation fuel, which I hope will play an important part on the future viability of our airports in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will undertake an evaluation of the potential benefits of small modular nuclear reactors within Scotland's energy provision. The Scottish Government's position on traditional fission nuclear energy is clear. We do not support the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland under current technologies. Small modular reactors use the same method of electricity generation as traditional nuclear fission. That means the same environmental concerns as traditional nuclear power plants. SMRs still create radioactive waste, requiring complex and expensive management. They are unnecessary in Scotland, given that proven renewables and storage technologies already provide a pathway to net zero for Scotland. More than 20 countries around the world have pledged a triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Canada, Finland, France, Japan, Sweden, Poland and the Netherlands all get it. Being pro-nuclear is to be pro-environment. Yes, the SNP and their green bosses reject all new nuclear and the thousands of jobs that this would create. So how can the minister possibly justify her Government's opposition to high-skill and high-wage Scottish jobs? I can justify the opposition to this particular type of energy because we do not agree with the UK Government that nuclear energy is environmentally sustainable. As I have previously stated, it is not required in Scotland. Our draft energy strategy sets out that the capacity for renewable generation in Scotland could mean that Scotland's annual electricity capacity generation is going to more than double our demand by 2030 and more than travel by 2045. We have a route to net zero through renewables. We do not need nuclear power. Minister, new nuclear power could take decades to become operational and at great expense and potentially push up household bills. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the benefits of a significant growth in renewables compared to nuclear power in reducing household energy bills? New nuclear is expensive and that these costs will impact consumer bills. Under the contract for difference, awarded by the UK Government to Hinckley Point C, the electricity generated will be priced at £92.50 per megawatt hour at 2012 prices, significantly higher than the administrative strike prices for solar and onshore and offshore wind in the March 2024 allocation round at £61, £64 and £73 per megawatt hour and the equivalent of 2012 prices respectively. 5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has made of any impact of UK Government policies on its vision for a wellbeing economy in Scotland. A wellbeing economy that the Scottish Government is building places economic growth side by side with our pursuit of the health and wellbeing of our people and the integrity of our natural environment. We have achieved success if you consider that Scotland's GDP per capita since 2007 has grown by 10.8 per cent compared to the UK's 5.6 per cent and that is onshore levels for the benefit of Mr Fraser. At the same time, more workers are paid the real living wage in Scotland and likewise the gender pay gap and child poverty rates are lower than the rest of the UK. Equally at the same time, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by around 50 per cent since 1990 while our economy has grown. Of course, at the same time, policies pursued by the UK have undermined this, chief amongst them, austerity, so-called social security reform and Brexit. The Tory Government's budget offered nothing to the millions of people who are really struggling with the cost of living. With Sir Keir Stamart already confirming that Labour would follow the Tories' tax and spend rules and the fact that Labour and the Tories don't want to devolve employment law, it is clear that Westminster offers no solution for the people in Scotland. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the policies that the Scottish Government is taking forward with the limited powers of devolution to build a fairer dynamic economy, including tackling the scourge of in-work poverty? Does she agree with me that only independence can offer Scotland a better future with the full powers to tackle inequality, abolish poverty pay and build an economy with well-being at its heart? The growing when a SNP member mentions the scourge of in-work poverty says a great deal about the opposition in this place. The UK's budget prioritisation of tax cuts over public spending and investment will have a significantly negative impact on our ability to develop a well-being economy. Given the Westminster consensus on Brexit and austerity, it is clear that only independence will enable Scotland to take the action that is needed to fully tackle poverty, fully build our well-being economy. Until then, we will use every power at our disposal to do what we have to to support economic growth with purpose. Our economic strategy contains ambitious actions to deliver fairer, greener prosperity for all. It reiterates our commitment to fair work, including the real living wage, living hours and flexible working. All of these are vital to reducing poverty, which in and of itself is vital to economic growth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would say very gently to the cabinet secretary. I think that perhaps she should have a word with her economic adviser, Professor Mark Blyth, about the strength of the economic case for independence. According to results of a survey of businesses published this week by the Institute of Directors in Scotland, Scotland's biggest concern is the tax difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK, which is 82 per cent, citing that as an issue. It clearly prefers the UK Government's approach to personal taxation to that of the Scottish Government. When is this Government going to start listening to Scottish business? I listen very carefully to Scottish business and to the IOD. Amongst them are members of our new deal for business, who I held my first round table as cabinet secretary with last week. I take on board the results of the survey and the risks of tax divergence. We have faced some of, if not the most difficult financial circumstances in the devolution era. We are determined to continue to provide excellent public services and good high standards of living for the people of Scotland. That has required a progressive tax regime. I am also very clear that taxes, but one tool that we have, has to be used carefully, and we have to consider the risk of divergence across the UK. In making the judgment that the cabinet secretary has just talked about, does she believe that it is important that, in the tax debate, people are mindful of the significant benefits that arise to people in Scotland as a consequence of living here, and the access to elements of the social contracts such as the much more significant early learning and childcare offer, or the fact that people do not have to pay tuition fees, or that comparatively speaking, council tax is significantly lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom? The kind of crude analysis that Murdo Fraser has just put to her is as valid as his last call was for us to follow the economics of Liz Truss. John Swinney is absolutely right, and he has narrated so much of what is on offer with that strong social contract that we have fostered in Scotland. I do not need to narrate it, but I would add that I expect that people choose to come and live in Scotland for a wide number of reasons, not least some of those universal provision that John Swinney has narrated. I am absolutely clear in fact that the SNP's pursuit and willingness to pursue a progressive tax regime since we came into government has in fact insulated the people of Scotland from some of the worst aspects of the austerity that has been imposed on us. That is cruel social security reform that I mentioned earlier, and indeed now helping to insulate people and businesses from the quite extraordinary act of economic harm that was Brexit. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any progress towards meeting its target of reducing food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. Scotland is not on track to meet its target due to an increase in food waste levels that have been observed across the UK. To accelerate progress towards our 2030-50 per cent reduction target, the Scottish Government has committed to reset its approach. As proposed in the circular economy bill, our refreshed approach will include the mandatory public reporting of waste and surplus by businesses. We also have ambitions to target household food waste, and we aim to deliver a behaviour change intervention plan to enhance support for householders and enable them to take action. This Government has failed when it comes to meeting recycling targets. At current pace, the Government has set to miss further recycling targets. One is to have a maximum of 5 per cent of all waste to landfill by 2025 and the other of a minimum of 70 per cent recycling of all waste. Given the devastating report by the Climate Change Committee last week, what confidence does the Government have that it will meet all six targets by 2025? The member is right about the challenge of meeting the existing targets, which is why we are resetting our approach, both through the circular economy bill and also through our waste route map. Both of those have significant measures in them to improve our reuse, our recycling and to help us to meet the targets that we need to to meet net zero for Scotland. Recent major food organisations have warned new Brexit border rules, could cut the shelf life of fresh fruit from mainland Europe by a fifth and leave some deliveries from the EU unsailable. Does the cabinet secretary share those concerns and has the Scottish Government made any assessment of the impact of Brexit border rules on increased food waste? I do share the member's concerns. While the model is imperfect and may have an impact on food imports from the EU and on food waste because of Brexit, we must introduce import controls to deliver biosecurity protections for Scotland. We have repeatedly called for the UK Government to sign a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would remove many of those barriers, and we will be actively monitoring the implementation of the first physical checks on some goods that will be starting on 30 April. We are finally getting the opportunity to see legislation. I presented one of the first pieces of associated legislation to Parliament just last week, but I am clear that the UK Government process for introducing this fundamental change in how we import goods from the EU is severely lacking. The UK Government has had years to prepare for this, but, like everything that it has done on Brexit, it appeared to be making it up as they go. There is no doubt that this negligence has created unnecessary barriers and costs to trade, and it is Scotland, our communities and our businesses that are paying the price. Last year, I visited Empty Kitchen's Full Hearts in Edinburgh, an organisation that creates meals for vulnerable people using surplus food. Surplus food sharing can help fight food poverty and reduce food waste. Can the minister please outline how the Scottish Government is encouraging businesses to join surplus food scheme? The member is absolutely right, and I know that this is an area where the member himself volunteers and is very active indeed. The member is right that during a cost of living crisis, waste food, we estimate costs of a four-person family around £1,000 a year, and for people who are unable to access food, the organisations such as fair share, which share out surplus food, are absolutely vital. Since 2021, the Scottish Government has provided around £1.4 million of funding to fair share, and we are delighted with the work that it does. That concludes portfolio questions on wellbeing, economy, net zero and energy. They will be a very brief pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front bench teams to change positions. Should they so wish? The next portfolio this afternoon is finance and parliamentary business, and at question number one I call Gordon MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has made of any impact that stagnation has had on Scotland's public finances in light of the final report of the resolution foundations, the economy 2030 inquiry, which found that the UK is a decade and a half into a period of stagnation. The resolution foundation has found that the stagnation that we have seen would have devastated the wealth that has been taken out of the country. Despite the limited powers of devolution, we have transformed the landscape in Scotland. The resolution foundation report highlights that the last 15 years of lost growth means that the UK economy is 22 per cent smaller than it could otherwise have been. That has inevitably led to significant lost revenue for which Scotland has of course paid the price. The recent budget decisions by the UK Government have compounded that with tax cuts prioritised over investment in public services with up to £1.6 billion in potential consequentials for Scotland, which we will not see. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. The resolution foundation found that benefit levels have not kept pace with prices, and those relying on benefits have seen their incomes reduced by £3,000. At the same time as wealth has risen from three to over seven times national incomes since the 1980s. Given the powers, what steps would a Scottish Government do to address that? Gordon MacDonald is right to ask that question. Despite the limited powers of devolution, we have transformed, for example, social security in Scotland by comparison with the UK Government, which is steadily eroding the safety net with, for example, benefit freezes, caps and limits, providing inadequate levels of financial support. In contrast to that, we have spent more than £733 million in the past five years to mitigate the effects of UK Government policy. As Gordon MacDonald alluded to, with full powers over social security, we aim to eliminate poverty and ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living through a fairer and more adequate benefit system. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the stagnation issue to which Mr MacDonald's question refers is as much a Scottish problem as a UK one, given that the recent CBI Fraser Vallander report into productivity in Scotland is clearly showing that Scotland is failing in 10 out of 13 productivity metrics? On the one hand, Lord Smith wants us to be held to account as if we are an independent nation when the macroeconomic levers lie with the UK Government, but despite those economic levers lying with the UK Government, Scotland's GDP per capita has grown faster than the UK's since 2007, accounting for population growth. Since 2007, GDP per person has grown by 10.8 per cent in Scotland, compared with 5.6 per cent in the UK. Since 2007, productivity in Scotland, which was what Lord Smith referred to, has grown at an average annual rate of 1 per cent per year compared with the UK average of 0.5 per cent. Earnings in Scotland grew by 8 per cent in 2023 faster than any other part of the UK, including London and the South East. Despite not having those macroeconomic levers, I think that Scotland is doing pretty well by comparison. On those benches, we absolutely agree that we need to get rid of this rotten Tory Government that crashed the economy, left working people paying the higher price in bills and mortgages, and has now led the country into recession. The reality is that this Scottish Government has made a bad situation worse, with its total failure to grow the Scotland's economy. A range of academics and economists have told Parliament that the recent Scottish Government budget is categorically not a budget for growth. It is at that time that we had two Governments focused on growing the economy so that we can grow our tax base and fund the services that we need. The shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves is going to emulate the same tax and spending clans of the rotten UK Tory Government that he cited. It is hard to distinguish between the UK Labour policy and the UK Tory policy. I, in answer to Liz Smith, outlined where Scotland's economic performance, despite not having those levers, was better in terms of GDP per capita, productivity growth and earnings in Scotland and, of course, foreign direct investment, has grown faster than the UK and Europe's in recent years. There is a tendency on the Opposition benches to try and talk down Scotland's performance. Despite all that, we see a Scottish economic performance that, despite all those headwinds, is on those comparable data doing much better than the Opposition would have us believe. To ask the Scottish Government how it has allocated the funding raised through Scotland option fees in the 2024-25 Scottish budget. As outlined in the budget document, £200 million of income from Scotland option fees has been provisionally allocated in the 2024-25 Scottish budget to support the total resource funding position. At the end of 2023-24, there is the end of the financial year approaches, the financial position that I am pleased to say has improved. I am working towards entirely removing any utilisation of Scotland while still achieving a balanced budget. The upcoming medium-term financial strategy will provide a further update on the future approach to Scotland's utilisation. I very much welcome the Deputy First Minister's commitment in that regard. Of course, on those benches, we have often lamented the way in which revenues from oil and gas have been squandered over the past 30 years on annual running costs rather than establishing a sovereign wealth fund, as was the case in Normway. What plans does the Scottish Government have to ensure that we are not lamenting a similar situation happening with options fees from our great renewables potential in 30 years' time? We continue to work closely with Crown Estate Scotland to ensure that we realise maximum economic benefits for the Scotland licence fees and protect the value of proceeds that remain available for spending in future years. The devolution settlement does, sadly, constrain our option of establishing a sovereign wealth fund as such, and I suspect that the member will agree with me that it would be far preferable that we, in Scotland, had the full fiscal and economic powers of independence so that we could take sensible steps to establish a sovereign wealth fund or equivalent. As we have just heard, for decades, Nationalists berated Margaret Thatcher for failing to create a sovereign wealth fund from oil and gas energy resources, but now in Government, Nationalists have failed to create a sovereign wealth fund and have instead used almost half the funds from wind energy resources to repair the mismanagement of their public finances. Why is it one rule for the Nationalists and another rule for everyone else? It's not. If Willie Rennie had listened to my answer to Kate Forbes, he would have heard me say that the devolution settlement, as it exists, constrains our option of establishing a sovereign wealth fund. I suspect that Willie Rennie, given that he often comes to this chamber demanding additional spend on various areas of public services, would be the first to challenge me if we were sitting with an unallocated Scotland wind fund and he would be arguing for that money, no doubt, to be deployed in whatever spending area he came to the chamber in on that particular day. There is a balance to be struck here. I certainly would want to utilise Scotland—in fact, it is—when you look at the £4.7 billion being invested in positive action on climate, you could argue that that Scotland money has supported that £4.7 billion investment, as well as supporting public services. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has made towards the goals of the Freedom Information Improvement Plan 2024. I thank the member for the question. The previous commissioners' October progress report recognised the significant advances that have already been made, which have been commended by the new commissioner. That progress has been achieved despite a significant increase in requests. Over 5,000 requests were responded to in 2023 and an increase of 20 per cent since 2021, and two thirds since the pre-pandemic period. A revised improvement plan that was published in January builds on earlier work. Since January, investment in key roles has enabled further improvements to advance and maintain response times and provide more focus on staff training. We are building resilience and capability through longer-term projects. I thank the minister for that answer. Last December, the Scottish Information Commissioner had a backlog of 200 FOI appeal cases. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the Scottish Information Commissioner to ensure that the backlog is cleared in a timely manner, and those awaiting decisions are updated on progress? As the member and all members will be aware, the Scottish Information Commissioner is an independent regulator appointed by His Majesty the King on the nomination of this Parliament. The Scottish Government therefore rightly has no involvement in operational matters regarding the commissioner's discharge of his functions. However, I am aware that the commissioner has spoken publicly, including in his evidence in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on 23 February, about measures that were made in his office in putting in place issues to address that. To ask the Scottish Government how many premises in South Lanarkshire currently receive relief through the small business bonus scheme. As I had first July 2023, over 5,000 properties in South Lanarkshire were in receipt of small business bonus scheme relief. The Scottish Budget 2024-25 maintains a small business bonus scheme, which is the most generous small business rates relief in the UK, offering up to 100 per cent relief for eligible properties. Much of the powers to support businesses, as well as wider economic levers, are reserved to Westminster, including the level of VAT, alcohol and fuel duty, energy prices and interest rates. However, I know that the Scottish Government's small business bonus scheme has been a lifeline for many businesses in my Rutherglen constituency. Can the minister outline the work that will be undertaken through the new deal for business group, which is keeping reforms to the non-domestic rates system under review to ensure that it supports businesses and communities? Details on how the recommendations of the new deal for business NDR subgroup will be taken forward are outlined in the new deal for business groups implementation plan, including the establishment of five short-term task teams to consider particular issues raised. The NDR subgroup has continued to meet regularly and is committed to quarterly meetings, which will support on-going dialogue and engagement to explore how a non-domestic rates system can best support business growth, investment and competitiveness, while acknowledging the important role that non-domestic rates in-com plays in funding public services. 6. Jamie Greene To ask the Scottish Government at what specific annual income any individual would start to pay more income tax in Scotland than they would elsewhere in the UK under its new Scottish income tax levels. Half of Scottish taxpayers will continue to pay less income tax in 2024-25 when they live elsewhere in the UK, which includes all individuals earning up to £28,850. Those who call Scotland home enjoy a range of support that is not available throughout the UK, such as the Scottish child payment, free prescriptions and free higher education. All of that helps to make Scotland a great place to live, work, study and do business in. Jamie Greene So buried away in the answer there was the figure, £28,867, according to the Scottish National Party Government, the richest in society should pay more tax. I wonder what people earning £28,000 a year would have to say in response to that. In fact, when you get to £50,000 of income, there is a 20 per cent differential between what you are paying tax in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Those are not wealthy tycoons, they are senior teachers, senior nurses, senior police officers and many many in our public sector earning the sort of salary. Can I ask the minister how he thinks that we will attract the brightest and best to work in our public sector, as well as business, if they are paying more in tax here in Scotland than anywhere else? Well, one of the ways in which we attract the best and the brightest to work in our public sector in Scotland is by giving them the best remuneration anywhere in the UK, and examples of which there are many across the public sector in Scotland. We continue to invest and we take the decisions to have a progressive tax regime, because that is what is required to invest in our public services. Had we replicated the tax policies of Mr Greene's party, that would leave us some cumutively £1.5 billion a year worse off. I think that it is important that we continue to invest in public services. It is important that we continue to have a progressive tax regime that allows us to do so, and in doing so that can not only help us to retain the best and the brightest working in the public sector of Scotland, but to provide a range of benefits and services not available to taxpayers elsewhere in the UK that can attract many more people to come to Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government when its review of capital spending will be complete. Work is currently under way to update the pipeline of projects and programmes relating to our 2021 infrastructure investment plan to ensure that it is affordable and deliverable and provides best value for money. The refreshed infrastructure pipeline is intended to be published alongside the medium term financial strategy this spring. Rosa Grant. The cabinet secretary will know that women in Caithness and Murray are currently travelling over 100 miles to access maternity care in Regmore hospital in a unit that is not fit for purpose. The promised Caithness redesign has been shelved along with the Dr Gray and Regmore maternity unit improvements. People in Fort William have waited two decades for their new hospital as have people in Barra and Battersea with their new hospital having been abandoned altogether. GPs and their patients in Grant and Thot had a new surgery. The last part of their complete service redesign has also been paused. A pause to these capital projects will disproportionately affect patients across the highlands and islands because of past neglect. Will she give me a commitment that those projects will be reinstated when the review completes in spring? Dr First Minister. Rhoda Grant raises some important points. Let me remind Rhoda Grant and the chamber that, in terms of the capital budget outlook, it will result in nearly 9 per cent real terms cut, which is a cumulative reduction of £1.3 billion over the period to 2027-28. That will impact right across the board of the capital projects that were in the 2021 infrastructure pipeline. It is right and proper that we have had to analyse all of that and that work is on-going. As I said to Rhoda Grant earlier on, we will bring forward the revised infrastructure investment pipeline alongside the MTFS at the end of May. Of course, there are a number of investments already in the health infrastructure. We are investing £314 million in 2024-25 in health infrastructure, but I recognise very much that there are some vital health projects that are in that pipeline. I will make sure that Rhoda Grant and the rest of Parliament get that update in me, but let us not underestimate the impact of taking £1.3 billion out of our infrastructure availability. That, of course, is going to have an impact and there is no avoiding that. I ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has undertaken of the impact of its 2024-25 budget on the Highlands and Islands region. The Highlands and Islands local authorities will receive over £1.3 billion to support vital day-to-day services in 2024-25, which is an extra £70.7 million or an additional 5.4 per cent compared to 2023-24. All councils will receive their share of the currently undistributed £201.1 million following agreement with COSLA. Of course, the Scottish Government is also increasing the island's cost of living fund by £4 million in 2024-25. We have seen budgets for Highlands and Islands Enterprise slashed, the budget for Visit Scotland slashed, with news breaking only today that information centres across the region will be closing. Councils are facing severe strain on their budgets, cuts to the housing budget across Scotland, with reports yesterday that housing association new-build starts last year were at the lowest level since 1998. We have seen work on major health projects like the Belford in Fort William paused. The cabinet secretary did not mention anything about the question that I asked or what analysis the Scottish Government had undertaken. If the Scottish Government has not undertaken of the impact of the budget on the Highlands and Islands region, given that it is a bad budget for the region, will she? Unfortunately, Jamie Halcro Johnston has failed to recognise a number of things. One is that the UK Government has delivered a real-terms reduction to our funding, not least a 9 per cent real-terms cut to capital funding, which is £1.3 billion cumulatively reduced out of our budget by 2027-28. Has Jamie Halcro Johnston's Government not made those decisions? The question has been asked. We are listening to the response. There is absolutely no point to this process if members are not going to listen to the response given and have the courtesy to extend that to the Deputy First Minister. Please continue, Deputy First Minister. Jamie Halcro Johnston's Government cannot make decisions to cut the capital funding by £1.3 billion and for that not then to have some impact on some of the projects around Scotland or some of the investments that we would like to make. That is point number one. Point number two, in terms of the resource funding, whether it is for HIE or councils, the member behind Jamie Halcro Johnston just a few minutes ago was criticising some of the tax decisions that we have made, which have resulted in extra funding for public services. Had we followed the tax plans of the Tories, we would have £1.5 billion less to spend on local authorities or Highlands and Islands Enterprise or any of the other services in Scotland. The Tories cannot come to this place arguing for more money when they set their stall against raising any more money and when their Government that they support cuts the funding to Scotland. Those things do not add up and it's about time we heard some honesty from Jamie Halcro Johnston and the Tories. I have received a supplementary from a member and I would of course remind the member that has paired the business bulletin. The question does concern impacts on Highlands and Islands regions with that I call Emma Harper. I will make it linked to the Highlands and Islands region because the South Scotland faces similar challenges to them. Ms Harper, really I have to, is a question about the Highlands and Islands and I think to give the Highlands and Islands their place we need to focus on the Highlands and Islands. I don't have any other request, please resume your seat for supplementaries and therefore thank you. Front Bench Lack concludes portfolio questions on finance and parliamentary business. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow Front Bench teams to change position should they so wish. Thank you. The next item of business is a debate point of order, Finlay Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Following the publication of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee report at stage 1 report on the agriculture and rural communities Bill on Monday 18 March, the Government's response was not received until 6.29 last night, giving members virtually no time to reflect on the response and indeed consider the implications on the general principle of the bill on which we will be voting this afternoon. Members will be aware that the committee in its report raised a number of issues relating to how the powers provided for in this framework bill would be used. The cabinet secretary's response did not address those issues but rather indicates that the cabinet secretary will reflect on whether amendments at stage 2 would be necessary. I recognise that the timings for stage 1 reports and debates are tight. I would welcome your views therefore on whether those timings are fit for purpose for supporting the Parliament's decision on the general principles of whether they should be strengthened and amended to A, give the Scottish Government more time to provide a substantive response to stage 1 bill reports, which meaningfully engage with the recommendations and B, give all members more time to consider the Government's response in advance of stage 1 debates. I thank Mr Carson for his contribution. Of course, the issue of the timing of Government responses to stage 1 reports does not engage the standing orders of the Parliament and hence is therefore not a matter that I can rule on from the chair. What I would say is that, with regard to the timing of the stage 1 debate, it is an issue that members are free to raise with their business managers.