 Good morning, the first item of business is general questions. 1. Jackie Dunbar Will the Scottish Government, whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the work that is doing to support elective representatives to take parental leave? Thank you, Mr Joe Fitzpatrick. The Scottish Government remains committed to increasing the diversity of councillors I am breaking down barriers that discourage people from standing or re-standing. I support the introduction of proxie voting for councillors. The Scottish Government has been working in partnership with COSLA to look at how that could enable elected representatives to take parental leave without risking their democratic mandate in local authorities." I thank the minister for his answer and I am aware that he's previously suggested the use of section 43 to enable proxy voting may be an option. However, it has also been suggested it may open a local authority up to legal challenge either directly or as a means to challenge decisions where a proxy vote is the difference. So can I ask the minister whether the Scottish Government could offer any support to help protect local authorities? Utilise in section 43 to enable proxy voting from the risks associated with such a challenge. As I said, the Scottish Government is supportive of proxy voting for our local councillors. Given the variations in approach to council meetings across Scotland, it is for individual local authorities to satisfy themselves that any pilot is within their existing powers. Although I want to be as helpful as I can, only the courts can authoratively interpret the Scottish Parliament's legislation. However, in the interests of partnership working and in line with our commitment to increasing the diversity of councillors in elected office, I am meeting with Aberdeen City Council and COSLA next week to identify how we might be able to better support the local authority to run a pilot proxy voting scheme. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to spend the £295 million in Barnett consequential funding arising from the UK Government's 2002 spring budget. Of the consequentials confirmed as part of the UK Government's spring budget, £237 million was derived from health spending. That will be passed on in full to health spending in Scotland. That is £235 million less than the in-year consequentials from health in 2023-24, which, unfortunately, were not baselined, even though they were largely related to pay. Those consequentials also include £48 million arising from local authority spending in England, announced in January, which will also be passed on in full to local government, as part of a package of additional funding worth up to £62.7 million. I will provide a further update on the 2024-25 Scottish budget next month with formal allocation of any new funding to be included in the 2024-25 autumn budget revision. Alexander Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary and Deputy First Minister for the response. The SNP Government consistently likes to mislead the public about the amount of funding that it receives from the UK Government, but the facts speak for themselves. In 2024-25, the Scottish Government will get £40 billion in a block grant and will receive more than £2,000 per person for public services. However, that advantage has been completely squandered by the SNP Government, who have to raise taxes on hard-working Scots due to their wasteful spending. Therefore, cabinet secretary, do you really think that spending money on independence papers while cutting NHS funding in real terms is the correct priority for this Government? Well, let's return to the matter of facts, shall we? Fact number one is that the health spending that we have got in terms of the consequentials leaves us with a shortfall for our health service, given that it is nearly half of what the health consequentials were for last 2023-24. Fact number two is that the lack of capital funding included in the spring statement means that there is a forecast £1.3 billion at real terms cut in our capital funding over five years. That means that whether it is housing or health infrastructure or transport, I think that any Tory MSP coming here demanding any funding for any infrastructure projects should be looking at the UK Government's decision to cut our capital budget by that £1.3 billion over the next five years. I hope that is enough facts for Alexander Stewart. I wonder if the First Minister would agree with me that it is also a fact of whether it is a Labour or Conservative Government that we have got five years more at least of austerity. It is also a fact that the IFS has outlined that the UK Government's spending plans amount to a real terms cut to net public sector investment of £18 billion between 24, 25 and 28, 29. Can the Deputy First Minister outline what assessment has been made of how much this amounts to per person and can she outline how an SNP Government would prioritise investment if it had the fiscal levers of other independent nations? It is a shocking fact that the UK Government is planning a real term spending cut, which in 2028-29 would amount to a cut of around £250 for every person in the UK. Of course, in Scotland, we are taking a different approach. We are demonstrating our priorities through a record £6.3 billion investment in social security and over £19.5 billion for health and social care in 2024-25, a real terms uplift of £316 million in the face of UK Government austerity. We could have gone much further if we had the full range of fiscal powers that other independent European nations have. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the Audit Scotland report, decarbonising heat in homes and the recent report by the regulatory review group regarding the forthcoming heat in buildings bill, what action it is taking to further assess and develop the supply chain for decarbonising buildings? Minister Patrick Harvie, both reports highlight the importance of long-term policy certainty for developing the supply chain. Our proposals for a heat in buildings bill will create a clear long-term legislative framework, giving confidence to the supply chain and enabling investment in its growth. This approach was welcomed by stakeholders when I hosted a recent round-table discussion for members of the industry. Along with our enterprise agencies, we continue to provide support to innovate and accelerate skills and capacity. That includes the funding, the development and adoption of innovative clean heating solutions, as well as considering new approaches that are needed to develop supply capacity. Over the past few months, I have submitted many written questions to the minister on such topics such as how many businesses are operating within the zero-carbon heating centre, how many heat loss surveyors are working in Scotland and what economic modelling has been undertaken to understand the future demand on the supply chain. Can the minister tell me how he intends to deliver on this bill, as he said urgently, if, by his own admission in answering those questions, the Government is not gathering this basic data? If you are beginning a journey minister, it is not enough to know where you are going, surely you need to know where you are starting from. We are, indeed, very clear where we are starting from. This Government is under no illusions that Scotland and the UK would be in a far, far better position not only to decarbonise our heating but to ensure affordable heating for people. If, throughout Scotland and the UK, decisions have been made decades earlier as the most progressive European countries dead in responding, for example, to the energy crisis of the 1970s, Scotland should have been building highly energy-efficient homes of the ability to decarbonise for decades. Those long-standing mistakes of successive UK Governments are the reason that we have an incredible challenge now. However, what the Government is doing is giving the long-term certainty that it will enable investment in this industry. A far cry from what the UK Government is doing of watering down, diluting and delaying action on heating buildings just this month. Indeed, it delayed the clean-heat market mechanism for an entire year, sending exactly the wrong signals to industry about the need to scale up, scale up and invest. Can I ask the Government whether it is continuing its work on its supply chain development programme, which focuses on building Scottish manufacturing capability to supply products that are needed for the net zero transition, and which learns the lessons from our success in rapidly building Scottish PPE supply chains during the pandemic? Indeed, the supply chain development programme does continue its work to align economy and innovation policy interventions with public sector spend, including both using more strategically important approaches to improve the capacity and capability of Scottish manufacturing supply chains. Prioritising the opportunities in low-carbon heating and housing means that we are working to make sure that procurement opportunities are made visible in the Scottish supply chain, including with manufacturers. There is also a huge amount of innovation happening in Scotland to develop the products, processes and services that will enable us to meet the challenge domestically, but we will also offer export opportunities. In late last year, I attended the Energy Efficiency Association conference, an important part of that supply chain. It identified extensive delays in the awarding of grants from Home Energy Scotland, and it said that it was having an impact on its capacity and the supply chain. What improvements is the minister making to the operation of Home Energy Scotland so that we can get those grants out much quicker, so that customers do not cancel their orders as we can get on to meeting those targets? We have a good track record through Home Energy Scotland of meeting the targets for grants. Some suppliers choose to count the entire customer journey from application rather than the award of grants from the point where an application has been accepted and processed. That is a bit longer than the UK Government's boiler upgrade scheme, for example, which does not include the direct individual bespoke advice and support that Home Energy Scotland provides. We provide more and that whole customer journey takes a little bit longer, but we have recently improved the Home Energy Scotland application process to further improve the time that it takes and the smoothness of the customer journey. The minister has just mentioned that the UK Government has delayed its clean heat market mechanism, a scheme that uses reserve powers to regulate the industry to increase the installations that we desperately need. That delay came after months of briefing and counter-briefing on whether the scheme was to be scrapped altogether. The minister has just highlighted the need for certainty and clarity in regulation. Does he feel that the UK Government is really providing that? Mark Ruskell is absolutely right to point this out. The clean heat market mechanism was a mechanism by the UK Government. We supported it and said that it would help not only to achieve its targets but to help us to achieve our targets with the potential to shape the growing market for clean heating systems. It uses powers that are reserved to the UK Government that we cannot use here. The delay after months of speculation and lobbying by vested interests who wanted to kill that scheme off is hugely disappointing. It will discourage existing boilium manufacturers from increasing their investment in their ability to supply clean heating systems. I would encourage the Prime Minister to drop his culture war on climate at the launch last autumn and give long-term certainty that the industry needs. The latest report by the Royal Bank of Scotland and the private sector activity that showed that employment growth in Scotland was faster than any other UK nation or region. I have a note of the first question in writing. I welcome the data that shows that employment growth is faster in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. The Scottish Government is using all the powers at our disposal to grow a fair and green wellbeing economy, but the fact remains that Scotland is tied to a UK economic model with stagnating productivity and lessening living standards and is facing a number of self-imposed challenges, chief among them Brexit and self-defeating migration policies alongside. We are continuing to pay the price for Westminster mismanagement and for Westminster austerity. Independence is the route to higher living standards, better public services and a stronger fairer economy. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. I am sure that she agrees with me that, while it is great to see the positive reports about Scotland's economy, we would be better as that independent country, part of the EU, rather than this post-Brexit failed state that is a united kingdom. I absolutely agree with that. The UK Government's reckless decision to take Scotland out of the EU single market against Scotland's democratic will is damaging Scottish trade and the economy. Indeed, modelling by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that the UK economy is now 2.5 per cent smaller than it would have been in the EU, a gap that could increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035. That is before we even touch on what we have lost socially and how far the UK has fallen in terms of its international standing. Scotland's future should be as an independent country back in the EU so that we can emulate the success of our comparator countries and seize that future prosperity, which this Government is in no doubt away at Scotland. Although the growth of employment in the latest figures is very welcome, the cabinet secretary will know that the employment rate in Scotland still lags behind the UK as a whole. Indeed, the latest CBI Fraser of Allander productivity index showed Scotland lagging the rest of the UK in 10 out of 13 productivity indicators, including business investment, exports and R&D investment. Instead of moaning about the position in the UK, can the cabinet secretary explain why Scotland lags behind other parts of the UK and what is she going to do to turn the situation around? Murdo Fraser comes to lecture me at a time when the UK has recently fallen into a technical recession. Indeed, after his party has, for half of my life, all of my adult life, overseen 15 years of austerity, a self-imposed Brexit pursued during a pandemic, tax cuts over public services and, ultimately, living standards plummeting, so that we now have a UK which, analysis in the Financial Times, is described as a poor country with pockets of rich people. I will take no lectures from Murdo Fraser or the Tories. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that the voices of Highland communities are appropriately considered by the energy consent unit when assessing applications from developers. It is vital that everyone has the opportunity to engage in decisions about future developments. We are clear that this engagement must begin as early as possible by developers at the pre-application stage. It should be effective, collaborative and meaningful in order to truly influence the final application. Once a section 36 or 37 application has been submitted to the energy consent unit, members of the general public or groups may make direct representations and comment to Scottish ministers. Scottish ministers take those views into account alongside all other application documentation in making their decision. The minister may be aware that the Highland Council has objected to SSEN's application for the Sky overhead line reinforcement. What is the minister's response to the firm belief of campaigners that, as a result, schedule 8 of the electricity act 1989 requires a public local inquiry and that, in view of the overwhelming interest and response on the Isle of Skye, the energy consent unit should send the application for a public local inquiry? The Sky reinforcement project is currently the subject of a live application under section 37 of the electricity act 1989. Ms Forbes will know that in my role as energy minister I am unable to comment on how such applications are being or may be considered as this could be viewed as prejudicial to the decision making process. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the immediate priorities plan developed with disabled people's organisations. The Scottish Government is working hard to improve the lives of disabled people. The independent living fund, which supports disabled people, will reopen to new applicants after receiving a £9 million investment as part of the 2024-25 Scottish budget and will support around 1,000 new applicants. Later this year we will implement an immediate priorities plan that will deliver a range of actions to support disabled people. In addition, £5 million from our equality and human rights fund supports disabled people's organisations to tackle inequality and discrimination, furthering equality and advancing the realisation of human rights in Scotland. Disabled people across my West Scotland region have been in touch with me to express their frustration at a Government that they feel is not taking the issues and concerns of disabled people seriously. Although they have welcomed the intent behind the immediate priorities plan, it has become something of a misnomer because there is no immediate sale on something that you have been discussing for a year and we have seen very little progress. Indeed, the minister's answer suggests that later this year sometime we will see further progress. Will she listen to the concerns of disabled people who are raising those issues with their MSPs and what she is going to do to energise this work as a matter of urgency so that she can deliver on the action for the challenges facing disabled people in Scotland? The member will appreciate that this is a plan that is being co-produced with disabled people's organisations. On Tuesday this week, I met those disabled people's organisations along with the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that we are moving forward as quickly as we can with publishing and then implementing the plan. I want to point out that this is not the only piece of work that we are undertaking to support disabled people. Indeed, I covered a few in my initial answer, but I will be more than happy to share even more of what the Scottish Government is doing with the member if he is interested.