 Ynw'n wneud piwl i'w deulueth ymerdd päff Field i dac I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it plans to undertake into spoilt ballots at the 2022 local government elections. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At the recent local government elections, 1.85 per cent of ballot papers were rejected by returning officers. This was an improvement on 1.95 per cent in 2017. The most common reason for a ballot paper being rejected was that the voter had marked more than one first preference. It is a matter of great concern if any voter loses their vote. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board to explore what more can be done to support voters to further reduce numbers of rejected ballot papers so that every vote counts. I thank the minister for that answer. Subjective evidence seems to suggest that spoilt ballot papers in multi-member wards may have arisen from postal ballots, given the incredibly hard work polling staff undertook to remind person voters of the ranking system. Is the Government aware of that view, and will it, along with the election management board, undertake a review, given the challenge of identifying spoilt papers in postal votes? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not being made aware of that specific issue, but I'm quite happy to have a look into it and work with the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission to make sure that every vote does indeed count. I think that you've got a number of supplementaries. I'll try to get through all of them first to John Mason. I thank you for that. I'm a real fan of STV, and yet I think that there is a problem that we're having one STV vote every five years and all the other votes are Xs, and unlike Martin Whitfield, I realised that people were putting multiple Xs despite what the staff at the polling station were doing. Does the minister think that we can continue with STV once every five years? As John Mason will be aware, the STV system takes us away from traditional cross in a ballot paper, Mr Mason will also be aware of the many benefits of STV. Although it has been in place since 2007, it is less familiar process for voters. I agree that it is vital that people do not lose their vote. That is why I will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board to explore what can be done. I encourage all of us involved in the political process to engage with the public on the many benefits of the STV voting process. There are over 50 in Midlothian. Of course, there are such small margins between the winners and losers in those. I noted that some returning officers were saying, certainly, that they were explaining the system to each voter who walked in, even if he said that they understood it. However, that was not happening at every polling station. Can I ask if the minister will give consideration to this? What instructions was given to those at the polling stations working there to say to voters as they came in to explain the system? Those in polling stations were well aware of how the system works. As I said, we have been in and have this process in 2007. However, I would say again to members that there is some responsibility on our own parts as political members of political parties that we should make sure that the public is aware of how the system works and how the process works in the future. Does the minister agree that it is time to have randomisation of ballot papers so that the influence of the alphabet is not as strong as it has proven to be over the past 15 years? The current system is that people whose name is very early at the ballot paper have a clear distinct advantage, particularly if they are new candidates and standing for the same party. Therefore, Alasdair Allan would easily defeat William Wallace if the two of them were standing for the same council ward. The SNP has randomisation of ballot papers in its own internal structures, so surely it is about time that the Scottish Government brought in randomisation for local government elections. I think that you are mixing up your island communities, Mr Gibson. Minister George Adam. Yes, I may have some skin in this game. My sister is a councillor in Renfrewshire, but I believe that it is not as big a problem as many have let out. Again, it is down to us as those involved in the political process to ensure that the public is aware of how the system works and how best political parties can make sure that they make sure that their vote is to the full capacity. On the whole, as I have said to everyone else, I am quite happy to work with anyone to see if we can get a better system, but I will work with the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board to see if there is anything else. Until that day, we have currently got the system that gives us a result that everyone agrees with, and everyone believes that that is the correct result, and that is more important than just about anything else in the democratic process. To ask the Scottish Government how its cross-government Covid recovery policies can reassure clinically vulnerable members of the public. The highest risk list ended on 31 May 2022, as we have strong clinical evidence to show that, as a result of the vaccination programme and new medicines, most people who are on the list are at no greater risk from Covid than the general population. The Scottish Government has written to those who are formally on the highest risk list to provide advice and guidance. The Scottish Government continues to promote the Distance Aware initiative, which helps people to feel more comfortable in public spaces. We strongly recommend that people still follow basic mitigations such as ensuring adequate ventilation and wearing face coverings where appropriate. Our approach to testing for different groups of the population will also continue to be informed by clinical advice. Alongside our evolving response to the pandemic, the Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy will continue to focus effort and resources on those most impacted during the pandemic to ensure a fairer recovery. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Many constituents in the Highlands and Islands who have pre-existing conditions that make catching Covid even now more dangerous than it is likely to be for others have been in touch with me seeking better protection from the virus. How can people, particularly those who are not eligible for boosters, remain safe now that restrictions have been lifted but Covid is still circulating? I sympathise with the point raised by Emma Roddick on behalf of her constituents and those who feel and who are more vulnerable to Covid. The Government's advice, which I set out in my initial answer, is that people should follow sensible precautions. That is an obligation on others within society as well to respect the position of people who feel more vulnerable. Those precautions would include the wearing of face coverings, where that is appropriate, ensuring adequate ventilation and maintaining good hygiene. We will continue to monitor the situation in relation to Covid. Should there be any requirement for us to change advice and to intensify advice, those steps will be taken. A couple of brief supplementaries and brief responses for Jackie Baillie. Asymptomatic testing has ended for carers and those cared for. Antivirals are restricted. The panoramic trial does not apply in Scotland and you are being asked to travel distances from Helensburg to Oban as one example aged over 80 with Covid to get antiviral treatment. Those on the shielding list and carers feel abandoned. They were not reassured by a meeting that they had with the Scottish Government. With BA4 and BA5 variants now causing concern, why has the cabinet secretary withdrawn or limited the very things that provide the vulnerable with reassurance? I think that there are a range of different measures that remain in place that are designed to support those with vulnerability. Jackie Baillie herself mentioned the availability of antiviral medicine. I know the effectiveness of that for people who are clinically assessed as being the ones who will benefit from that. Jackie Baillie continues to assert her question from a sedentary position, but the point that I am making is that there is a clinical assessment undertaken. I do not think that Jackie Baillie would be at the front of the queue to doubt the clinical assessments that have got to be made. There is a combination of the precautions that I talked about in my answer to Emma Roddick a moment ago and the availability of focused treatments to support individuals should they be in a position of clinical vulnerability. Of course, there is the protection offered by a range of provisions in the vaccination strategy, which has insulated the population so effectively from the serious effects of Covid. Public Health Scotland's findings from its most recent survey on people on the high risk list shows that social economic vulnerability remains the strongest association with on-going caution and fear of Covid-19 infection. Is there any further information on how cross-government Covid recovery policies will respond to that? Fundamentally, the Covid recovery strategy is focused on tackling any quality, any quality that existed before Covid and was exacerbated by Covid, and our efforts are now focused on ensuring that the social economic inequalities that Stephanie Callan highlights are addressed as a consequence of our cross-government work on Covid recovery. To ask the Scottish Government when it will next hold a debate on reaching net zero. This is a matter for the parliamentary bureau. However, I note that yesterday afternoon, the cabinet secretary for net zero gave a statement to the chamber and responded to members' questions on the progress to Scotland's statutory mission reduction targets. I thank the minister for that answer, but, given that SNP Government's awful environmental record, this Parliament needs more opportunity for scrutiny. Just yesterday, as the minister alluded to, we heard the cabinet secretary all but confirm that he expects next year's emission target will be missed. The flagship deposit return scheme has been delayed twice, the recycling rate is actually going backwards and one in nine species are at risk of extinction. Can the minister see how this lack of debate looks like the Scottish Government is trying to hide from its failures? I would say to Mr Golden that it is hardly hiding when the parliamentary the cabinet secretary for net zero answered questions and said that we hit our annual targets yesterday. However, can I suggest that it should remember which to explore these matters further? He talked to the gentleman to his right hand side and possibly get him to bring it up at bureau where we can discuss it in the usual manner. Thank you question number four, Karen Adam, who joins us remotely. As the Scottish Government, what policies and actions across government will support people in the Banshire and Buckingham coast constituency to recover from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic? During the pandemic, the Scottish Government has provided more than £4.7 billion in support to businesses in Scotland. Most recently, our £80 million Covid economic recovery fund provides funding that affords local authority the flexibility to target support for their businesses and communities. Aberdeenshire Council and Murray Council have been allocated £3.7 million and £1.3 million respectively. Further, since 2020, Aberdeenshire and Murray have benefited from the £6 million of additional support that the Scottish Government has provided to town and community partnerships and business improvement districts. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and I welcome that investment. As the cabinet secretary will know, Banshire and Buckingham coast is a rural coastal constituency which has had some very unique challenges related to its geography and local industries. Covid has exaggerated existing issues, not least compounded by Brexit and now the cost of living crisis. The fishing industry and ports are key to recovery and, when they thrive, the area and the people benefit. Will there be bespoke support fitting for area specifics, rather than a blanket approach to recovery? I hope that, in the material that I have given him my answer already, I have reassured Carn Adam that the Government is targeting funding in particular localities where there is demonstrable need and Aberdeenshire Council and Murray Council have been funded appropriately in that respect. The Government will continue to look at all funding streams to make sure that they are relevant to meet the challenges of different localities in the country. Of course, there are specific funds available, particularly in relation to the transition to net zero, which are only available in the north-east of Scotland, which will be of relevance to the communities that Carn Adam represents in this Parliament. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the role that an autumn-winter Covid-19 booster vaccination programme will play in its Covid recovery strategy. Since its beginning, the Scottish Government's Covid-19 vaccination programme has been guided by expert advice provided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The JCVI's interim advice in May recommends an autumn-winter 22 booster programme for those at higher risk of severe Covid-19. We are already working closely with NHS boards in line with this advice. The protection of the most vulnerable people in society continues to be of primary importance and we stand ready to act on any further advice that recommends boosters for additional groups. Alongside our evolving response to the pandemic, our Covid recovery strategy continues to focus effort and resources on bringing about a fairer future, particularly for those most impacted by Covid-19. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and, while I appreciate that we await the final advice from the JCVI on the autumn-winter booster vaccination, I would say that people in my Coutonbeath constituency and indeed across Scotland would like to know if they will get the booster or not. Can the cabinet secretary provide any update as to when that information is likely to be forthcoming and can he confirm that the timing will be sufficient for the Scottish Government to put in place the necessary arrangements should the JCVI widen out the list of those eligible? At this stage, I am unable to give a definitive timetable to Annabelle Ewing and I quite understand the concerns that she raises and the points that she articulates on behalf of her constituents in Coutonbeath. The JCVI is an independent committee and it is correctly taking time to review the emerging clinical evidence, including crucially the information on vaccine waning, infection rates and hospitalisation. Once the committee has the opportunity to do that, I am certain that they will publish their findings accordingly. What I reassure Annabelle Ewing about as we have demonstrated over the course of the last 18 months is that the Government and our health boards are ready to deploy vaccination activity. The vaccination programme has been an extraordinary success on the scale that has been carried out. I pay tribute to those who have organised and delivered the programme and I assure Annabelle Ewing and her constituents in Coutonbeath that the same arrangements will be in place if that is required based on JCVI advice. I have been contacted by a constituent who received a letter of invitation to attend the spring booster vaccination. After registering at the vaccination centre on 22 April 2022 and making his way to the vaccination cubicle, the nurse advised that she could not administer the booster as he was ineligible. The staff at the centre advised that there had been turning away people all day with appointment letters because the wrong letter had been sent out. My question is, can the cabinet secretary advise why this blonder in the administration of vaccines occurred and can he provide reassurances that this error, which no doubt wasted valuable staff time, NHS costs and time for patients to travel, will not occur again? What I would say to Dr Gohani is that the vaccination programme has been an extraordinary success. It has also been undertaken at an extraordinary scale. I am not going to stand in Parliament and say that the whole process at that scale is going to be error free. For members of Parliament to expect it to be error free is slightly on the ambitious side, if I can put it as delicately as that. Every effort is made to ensure that vaccines are delivered timidly and conveniently to members of the public. If there is an error involved, I apologise for that. I want nobody to be inconvenienced. I want nobody's time to be wasted. On a vaccination programme of the scale that we have undertaken, the number of errors that have taken place has been kept to an absolute minimum, and that is a tribute to everyone involved in running the programme. The booster programmes are vital in Covid recovery, protecting the most vulnerable and, crucially, giving confidence to many unpaid carers who feel left behind as things move forward. The interim guidance for the coming winter booster programme does not include unpaid carers, and speaking to carers, I know that that is of great concern, particularly with the advent of BA4 and BA5 variants and the impact on those that they care for. Will the Deputy First Minister commit to working with the health secretary to deliver winter boosters for unpaid carers and what further action is the Government taking to support unpaid carers in the recovery from Covid-19, many of whom feel abandoned? In relation to the distribution of any booster vaccination programme, as I explained in my earlier answer to Annabelle Ewing, guidance on that is given to the Government by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Governments of all political persuasions have followed the advice of the Joint Committee on undertaking the vaccination programme over many years. The Government will listen carefully to the advice that we receive from the Joint Committee, and that will specify which groups should be eligible for the vaccination programme. In relation to carers support, in Scotland, carers are in receipt of much greater support than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom, with the carers supplement that is available in Scotland and is paid to carers. Obviously, Mr O'Kane will be familiar with the details of that, and he is welcome to promote that to carers. As the Government promotes the awareness of that benefit to carers, carers do a phenomenal amount of work to benefit our society. I express my warmest thanks to them and hope that those who are eligible for the support are able to access it. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the information commissioners progress report on its handling of freedom of information requests. I have written to the Scottish Information Commissioner welcoming the report. I am pleased that the commissioner has recognised the number of areas where the Scottish Government has made improvement. However, I also recognise that the report identifies significant areas where further work is needed. Work is currently under way to develop the next phase of our improvement plan in response to the commissioner's recommendations, and we will share that publicly in the coming weeks. Let me ask the minister about one of those areas that requires improvement. I accept that the pandemic was a strain, but the complacency of two-thirds of Government desks remaining empty shows no ambition to improve FOI response times. SNP special advisers are interfering with FOI responses leaving no record of their involvement. SNP special advisers are evading accountability, remaining anonymous on official spad email accounts. Those are not my words, but the findings of the Information Commissioner. Will the minister, in the spirit of the answer that he gave me a few moments ago, commit to ending the SNP dark arts approach, the public scrutiny, immediately? Minister George Adam. Can I say that, as I said earlier on, we will take many of the extra work that we need to actually work on this to make things better? However, I recognise that there is a journey of improvement for us to complete. Let's bear in mind that, in the nine months prior to the pandemic, the Scottish Government hit a 95 per cent target in the nine months prior to the target, we are currently making sure that we will make the improvements that are needed when and where we need them, and we will work with the Commissioner to make sure that that happens. It doesn't yesterday's limited publication of the legal advice on an independence referendum show a degree of contempt for the Information Commissioner. The legal advice that was of little interest to the public was released, whilst the legal advice that was in the public interest was kept secret. When will the Government honour its commitment to openness and publish the legal advice on whether it has the power to hold such a referendum or not? We have released the legal advice that is required under the Commissioner's decision, as it does not merit the time and expense that is required for an appeal. However, we disagree strongly with the Commissioner's reasoning and consider that there would have been good grounds for a successful appeal in the court of session. There is a long-standing convention observed by both UK and Scottish Government that the Government does not disclose legal advice other than exceptional cases. In this case, we have released the information as required. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to local authorities as part of its Covid recovery strategy to help them to resume normal services and manage staff absences. The 2022-23 local government finance settlement of almost £12.7 billion provides local government with a fair and affordable settlement, even within challenging circumstances. As long as councils act lawfully and first fulfil their statutory obligations and jointly agreed national and local priorities, it is a matter for each council to manage its resources and use its total budget available to them on the basis of local needs. The Scottish Government and COSLA have agreed shared priorities for recovery that focus on targeting support for those most affected during the pandemic. Alongside the COSLA president, I chaired the Covid recovery strategy programme board, which brings together a range of partners to co-ordinate activity to increase financial security for low-income households, enhance the wellbeing of children and young people, create good green jobs and fair work and deliver person-centred public services. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Some local authorities really are struggling with high absences due to Covid-19. Can I ask what discussions the Scottish Government has had with COSLA and all the individual local authorities who are still heavily impacted by these staff absences? Local authorities are independent corporate bodies. They are separate from the Scottish Government. They have the means and the sustainability to manage their own workforces. However, I regularly engage with COSLA on a range of issues, so, of course, any concerns on the question that local authorities wish to draw to my attention and to have for discussion through COSLA, I would be happy to discuss that issue. In her statement to Parliament last week on the medium-term financial strategy, the finance secretary set out that local authorities will face an eight per cent cut in their funding over the next four years. How does that level of cuts help them with Covid recovery? There are, of course, a range of financial instruments available for local authorities in addition to the measures that were announced last week by the finance secretary. The Government has always given a fair and affordable settlement to local government. It is available to Mr Fraser to bring forward any alterations to the Government's budget that he wishes to advance. We, of course, hear a lot of rhetoric on this question from the Conservatives and absolutely no action or substance whatsoever. So until we get some action from the Conservatives, we will continue to deliver fair and affordable settlements for local government which enable them to deliver the public services on which we all depend. Thank you. That concludes portfolio questions on Covid-19 recovery in parliamentary business. A brief pause while the front bench is changed. The next portfolio is net zero energy and transport. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, he can ask them to press the request-to-speak button or place an R in the chat function during the relevant question. Again, I'd appeal for succinct questions and answers to match. Question number one has not been lodged. Question number two, Colin Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason a maximum bidden price has been applied to commercial scale Scotland projects, but not to the 100-megawatt innovation projects, looking to progress through the forthcoming innovation and targeted oil and gas leasing round. Deputy Presiding Officer, unlike Scotland, the innovation projects are likely to vary considerably in their design requirements, including seabed location. That presents significant challenges in setting an appropriate price cap. Therefore, Crenacy Scotland has used an approach that allows the markets to establish a fair price. The Scotland leasing round for large-scale commercial projects used a price cap to enable the delivery of competitive projects that could maximise supply chain opportunities for Scotland, particularly in the deployment of emerging floating wind technologies. I'm not sure that the cabinet secretary actually explained why that cap wasn't in place elsewhere, but does he not recognise that having one rule for the Scotland round but a different one for innovation projects mean that companies that are focused on using innovative technology and, largely, Scottish supply chains were at a disadvantage compared to those big companies with the deepest pockets that are leasing Scotland's seabeds on the cheap and will never be using existing technology and, largely, global supply chains. That is bad news for Scottish jobs and bad news for innovation. I'm not too sure whether the member has entirely recognised the purpose of the intog process. The intog scheme is specifically designed to support innovation projects for the decarbonisation of oil and gas installations. They don't use the same spatial perimeters that we have for the Scotland wind programme. It's a very different type of programme targeted at the decarbonisation of oil and gas installations and to help to support innovation in achieving that. Additionally, many of the intog programmes will not connect into the grid. Many of them will only serve those directly, that they are decarbonised in installations and also for other projects as well. Alongside that, it is the first of the round of its type ever in the world. As I set out at Crown Estate Scotland in trying to establish a clear commercial narrative and cost around the intog has used an approach that they believe allows the market to determine that. It ensures that we get the innovation that we want to see taking place and also speeds up the decarbonisation of oil and gas sectors. Will the final decision on scoring criteria and waiting for intog leases for floating offshore wind projects be taken by Scottish ministers or Crown Estate Scotland? When will that decision be made? To ask the Scottish Government for its response to the Solar Energy Scotland report, Scotland's fair share, the potential of solar energy in Scotland. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of energy generation from solar PV in contributing to the decarbonisation of Scotland's energy supply and helping us to meet our targets for a net zero emission society by 2045. In support of that, the Scottish Government will work closely with Solar Energy Scotland representatives this year to support the development of a solar vision for Scotland. That work, in consultation with the solar sector, will establish a vision for the future of solar energy to be included in the forthcoming energy strategy, refresh and just transition plan. The UK Government's energy strategy presents a false choice of nuclear energy proliferation or continued reliance on Russian gas. New nuclear power will take 10 to 15 years to get up and running at exorbitant cost. It simply cannot address the current energy crisis or cost of living crisis. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we should be fully focused on increasing our renewable energy output such as solar, which can be done at a fraction of the time and a fraction of the cost? I think that there is absolutely no doubt that anyone who knows the nuclear industry knows that it will not play a part in helping to tackle the cost of living crisis just now. High costs are associated with energy being produced at the present moment. In fact, there is the risk that nuclear energy electricity production will push up domestic energy costs even further. It is important that we make sure that we reduce energy costs in a way that is targeted at helping to reduce people's energy demand by insulation programmes and moving to decarbonised energy systems, while at the same time speeding up the decarbonisation of our energy sector overall, which is why moving much more towards renewables, pump storage, hydro and battery storage is critical to ensuring that we can reduce the cost of energy overall and do that in a speedy way away, which nuclear energy will not be able to provide. I note that Jess Norman, who is a former energy minister, just this week pointed out that the UK Government's proposal of building a new nuclear power station a year is highly unlikely to happen anytime in the next decade. Will the cabinet secretary talk about the solar sector covering planning and taxation? On planning and taxation grounds, the UK Government is lifting the limits beyond the 50 kilowatt roof solar schemes. Scotland imposes higher taxes and greater planning restrictions. Is it not time to stop putting barriers on the way of businesses who want to do their bit for the climate? I am not entirely sure the member's point on taxes, because if he is making reference to that, he will be aware that that is the matter that is after the UK Government. On planning and looking at how we can make greater use of solar, that will be part of the issues that we will consider as we look at taking that forward. I am sure that the member will want to be generous in recognising that Scotland has been leading the way in pushing forward with renewable energy, and he can be assured that the new energy strategy will reflect that, and solar will be an important part of it. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to ensure that the marine environment is protected. The Scottish Government's vision is for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse seas, which are managed to meet the long-term needs of nature and people. Our programme for government sets out measures to continue protecting and enhancing our marine environment, including via species protection. Already 37 per cent of our seas are designated as marine protected areas. That succeeds the global target of 30 per cent by 2030, which is currently being negotiated. We will implement the remaining protective management measures to sites by 2024. In line with EU ambition, we will introduce highly protected marine areas, covering at least 10 per cent of our seas by 2026, which again is ahead of global commitments. All marine protection vessels will be tied up next week because mariners are on strike due to an imposed pay deal. Marine Scotland has reviews to negotiate and have thrown striking workers off the vessels, leaving them homeless. The Scottish Government is using PNO tactics against their own workers. In the meantime, our waters are not being policed and are protected areas and protected. What steps is she taking to protect our valuable fishing grounds and protected areas during the action, and what steps is she taking to resolve the situation and negotiate with the rightly aggrieved workers? It is inaccurate to draw any comparison whatsoever between the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland and PNO's activities. A number of constructive meetings have taken place between Marine Scotland and Unite, and various options have been explored in order to resolve the dispute, including proposed commitments around future reforms to pay structures, which would address a number of the Unite member's concerns. While an agreed way forward has not been reached to date, the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to collective bargaining and to further dialogue to resolve those matters. To ask the Scottish Government if it will outline how it will meet its target of 50 per cent of energy use from renewables by 2030, and if that is a sufficiently ambitious target in the light of new opportunities arising for Scotland? The 2017 Scottish Energy Strategy set out a target for generating the equivalent of 50 per cent of energy for Scotland's heat transport and electricity to be supplied by renewable sources. A review of the 2017 target will be considered as part of the forthcoming energy strategy refresh and just transition plan, which will be published for consultation in the autumn of this year. The strategy will also take into account the role of alternative fuels such as hydrogen as a means of producing low-cost energy security and also for export opportunities for Scotland, given the current global situation. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. The current capacity of renewables is just over 12 gigawatts. There is a further 15 gigawatt in planning. In addition, the Scotland leasing round is expected to deliver 25 gigawatt. That will represent more than a fourfold increase in Scottish renewable energy production, meeting all of Scotland's current energy demand far in excess of the 2030 target. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that represents a huge opportunity for Scotland? Will he make sure that every chance is taken to help everyone in Scotland to understand that this is a bounty that will serve us and all our futures in perpetuity? I agree with the member that we are in a very strong and robust place in moving forward with developing our renewable energy sector here in Scotland. That has been the case over the past decade and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be the same in the years ahead. As the member will be aware, we have the ambition of tripling our renewable energy generation capacity by 2030, and we want to make sure that we do everything that we can to address that and to ensure that those barriers that continue to limit capacity and development of some of those sectors within the renewable energy sector to be removed, for example, such as transmission charges. I assure the member that we will be looking to make sure that we maximise on that. Alongside that, not only to maximise it for our own domestic purposes but also to capitalise on the growing international desire to look at expanding in areas such as renewable hydrogen, where countries such as Scotland can play a major part in helping to support the decarbonisation of major economies within Europe, who are looking to green hydrogen as being a major source of their energy use in the decades ahead, and Scotland can play a big part in being a supplier to those markets and to generate the economic and social benefits that we will get from it right here in Scotland. Last week, cabinet secretary, I asked the junior minister from what source Scotland will get the 38 per cent of firm power, so not whether a battery-dependent climate change committee says will be required going forward, but his script didn't even begin to answer the question. Can the cabinet secretary provide a straight answer as to what source the firm power will come from? Everyone recognises the importance of firm or dispatchable power within our network. One of the things that we have, which I know that the Conservatives think, is that nuclear is the best way in which to do that. Actually, nuclear power generation is one of the most inflexible forms of energy power generation that we can have. The way in which we make use of dispatchable energy here is through hydro, pump storage and battery storage are the main ways in which we can deliver that. The member should recognise that one of the inhibitors to Scotland in being able to realise some of that potential is that the UK Government that controls access to the market does not have a market mechanism to allow the development and expansion of hydro and pump storage here in Scotland, which we could maximise. That would deliver the dispatchable firm source that we require and avoids the unnecessary costs and the environmental costs that we get with nuclear. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to make railway stations accessible for disabled people. Even though accessibility currently remains a reserved matter, Transport Scotland continues to seek to improve accessibility as part of wider rail enhancements and the decarbonisation programme. New stations at Inverness airport here mayors on the East Kilbride route and the two on the Leven line will be fully accessible. The Scottish Government will also provide funding for step-free access at Avymor, Pitlockry, Nairn and Can you see stations. Additionally, six stations secured funding from the access for all programme, including Annesland, Croy, Dumfries, Johnston, Port Glasgow and Urringston. I welcome the Scottish Government's position. It is important that train stations are safe and fully accessible to all. A number of constituents have contact need regarding difficulty accessing the Clydebank train station. Does the Minister support my position that accessibility needs to be renewed and improvements made that help to meet the needs of disabled people using this station? Absolutely. We need greater accessibility at our rail stations across the country and to that end I was pleased to meet this morning with Disability Equality Scotland to discuss some of the real challenges that its members face in relation to the rail network. Within the strategic transport projects review phase 2, there is a recommendation in relation to infrastructure to provide access for all at railway stations. That recommends that a review of station accessibility across Scotland is undertaken to identify barriers and improve access for all to the rail network. However, it is worth reiterating that rail accessibility remains a matter reserved to the UK Government. Therefore, to progress that recommendation, my officials in transport Scotland have been working closely with the DFT on an accessibility audit of all GB rail stations. In the light of that work, but also to ensure that maximum benefit is derived from all available funding rather, accessibility improvements for Clydebank station will form part of the considerations of recommendation 19, as set out in the SCPR2. I hope that that gives the member a reassurance on that point. That was a very encouraging answer from the minister. I was going to ask her if she would commit to doing such an audit, and she has. If she could tell us what the timescale would be for that, I think that having that information would be extremely useful for disabled people across Scotland. I do not have a note of the timescales involved in front of me, but I am happy to write to the member with more detail to that end. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on future road infrastructure projects in the north-east. The Scottish Government remains committed to improving infrastructure in the north-east as evidenced by the recent opening of the improvements at Hodigan on 16 May. We remain committed to making improvements to the A96 with a transparent evidence-based review of the corridor under way, which will report by the end of 2022. Additionally, we continue to progress proposed improvements at Lawrence-Kirk junction through the statutory process. For the longer term, the second strategic projects review sets out recommendations for strategic roads with focus on safety, climate change adaptation and resilience. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government released its national transport strategy, and as identified by my colleague Liam Kerr, the document failed to mention the notorious toll of Burness junction. Upgrading the junction and the wider A90 will not only make a huge difference to the lives of those living and working in the north-east, serving as a catalyst for economic growth, but will come with the potential of dramatically reducing the number of horrific accidents and saving lives. Traffic assessments were done nearly five years ago now and show that the junction will be almost unusable in the future. With that in mind, will the minister commit to upgrading the junction and bringing much-needed safety to commuters in Aberdeenshire? Of course, consideration of safety improvements on the A90 at the toll of Burness junction and the Cortys junctions can now be undertaken as part of the wider STPR2 road safety recommendation, which is recommendation 30, which focuses on trunk road and motorway safety improvements to progress towards vision 0. Where junction upgrades are needed to support that development in line with Scottish planning policy, developers need to mitigate their impact, which may include upgrading in junctions where a safety issue arises as a result of that development. I recognise the member's interest in relation to that issue particularly. I am more than happy to write to him with more detail in relation to the time that has elapsed since the issue was first raised. I think more broadly in relation to the recommendations that sit within STPR2. Beirion minds the question on road infrastructure products in the north-east. I call supplementary from Paul MacLennan. Thank you. Cars will continue to have a role to play in the travel arrangements of those in our rural communities for some time, but given we know the role which cars play in our transport-related emissions and given that the world is on course to exceed the 1.5 degrees of global warming threshold, does the minister agree with me that decisions regarding the building of future roads and infrastructure projects throughout Scotland must be considered in terms of their potential environmental impact? Minister, if there is anything that you can add, it is not really to do with road infrastructure projects in the north-east, but if there is anything that you can offer by way a response, I invite you to do so. We are committed to mission 0 for transport to decarbonise all modes of travel, including by road, including in the north-east of Scotland. Our commitment to achieving that net zero in transport terms is clearly set out in the vision and the outcomes of our national transport strategy. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve safety at train stations. Minister Jenny Goldruth Keeping passengers and staff safe on Scotland's railway is our absolute priority. Scotland has one of the largest CCTV networks in the UK, with more than 6,000 cameras monitoring over 350 stations. There are also help points at every platform that allow passengers and staff to be contacted by a customer information adviser 24 hours a day. This team speaks through the intercom and uses CCTV cameras to view passengers and staff in the station and are trained to report any antisocial and threatening behaviour to the British Transport Police, who are responsible for monitoring safety at our stations. Over the recent months, there have been a number of deeply distressing and serious incidents at train stations in my constituency. In some of those instances, people have lost their lives. Of course, that can be very upsetting for the communities of all. Does the minister share my view that we need to do everything possible to ensure that the public are assured that they can travel by train with confidence and enjoy the benefits of utilising Scotland's environmentally friendly and publicly-owned trains? I wholeheartedly agree that passengers and staff should all feel safe to travel on the rail network without fear of verbal or physical or antisocial behaviour. However, I must state that, overall, the railway in Scotland is a safe environment to travel in, notwithstanding some of Mr McGregor's points this afternoon. That was one of several topics that I raised with the chief constable of the British Transport Police and the chief superintendent of the British Transport Police Scotland when I met with him recently. BTP has confirmed that patrols are being redirected to ensure that it is deploying officers to known hotspots areas to prevent antisocial behaviour and other associated crimes. They are also piloting joint patrols at the moment with ScotRail trains to provide for a safe travel team in those areas. It is hoped that an extension in relation to those teams' abilities will be further provided in relation to the travel safe team, and that will increase the number available in terms of support. Thank you very much. That concludes portfolio questions. We will have a slight pause before we move to the next item of business. But, I encourage members who have just come into the chamber not to begin chatting as soon as they do so.