 The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question or press R in the chat function. To ask the Scottish Government when it will provide an update to Parliament on when it plans to bring forward legislation to incorporate human rights treaties. On the ambitious recommendations from the national task force for human rights leadership, the Scottish Government has committed to introducing a world-leading human rights bill during this parliamentary session, and we are on track to do that. The programme for government set out that we would be consulting on the bill in the coming year. That consultation and indeed the bill itself has been developed collaboratively with a wide range of partners and stakeholders from across Scotland. We will continue to provide updates to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on bill progress and timings. I look forward to hearing what I hope will be a comprehensive update on the progress of the UNCRC bill next Tuesday in the Cabinet Secretary's statement. Can the Deputy First Minister set out when he expects to introduce specifically legislation on the four human rights treaties that are committed to incorporating into Scots law, including the UNCRPD and UNCDOL? Can he confirm whether he will seek appropriate legal advice and work with the UK Government to ensure that future legislation is within devolved competence? In relation to the points from legislative competence, it is the obligation of ministers to ensure that that is the case and to present bills accordingly with the certificates that make that point. In relation to the incorporation of other treaties, as I indicated in my earlier answer, the Government is under way with this work. There will be consultation in the coming year and, of course, we will keep Parliament updated on specific timings and, of course, as we set out legislative programmes on a year-by-year basis during the parliamentary announcements, further details will become clear to members of Parliament. There is frustration about the lack of progress on the incorporation of the UNCRC, and I know that there will be a statement next week. Can the minister tell us that this will be the end of the process rather than another consultation or review group or process? We need to get this sorted quickly, so can the minister guarantee that? What I would assure Mr Rennie about is that, although we have been addressing the issues in connection with the specific points raised by the Supreme Court, which will be the subject of my statement to Parliament on Tuesday, we have also been undertaking the preparatory work to implement the elements of the bill that are uncontested in terms of the Supreme Court judgment. That work is under way, and my statement will obviously update Parliament on where we have reached in our consideration of the Supreme Court judgment. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has expressed concern over UK Government plans to run forward legislation to replace the human rights act with a new bill of rights. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm whether proposed reforms could take place without unsettling current devolution arrangements and what actions the Scottish Government will take to oppose any regressive proposals? At this stage, I am unable to give Stephanie Cullen the reassurance that she understandably and rightly seeks. The human rights act of 1998 is embedded in the legislation that led to the establishment of this Parliament. The powers of this Parliament and the way they are exercised is inextricably linked to the provisions of the human rights act. The fact that the UK Government is now going to essentially replace that legislation raises all sorts of issues about the consideration and handling of human rights issues, but it also raises the danger that the devolution settlement upon which this Parliament is founded may be destabilised as a consequence of that legislation. We do not know yet the answer to that question. We know that there is new human rights legislation emerging. Once the bill is published, we will scrutinise its content very carefully in order to assess its full impact. We will update Parliament, and I can assure Stephanie Cullen that the Scottish Government will resist any attempt to, in any shape or form, diminish the human rights that were entrenched in the human rights act of 1998, which led to the foundation of this Parliament. Before I call question number two, I understand Mr Whittle would wish in advance to apologise to the chamber, as he has advised he will need to leave the chamber immediately after he has asked his question. Question number two, Brian Whittle. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to improving data collection and data management across government as part of the development of policies relating to the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The Scottish Government is committed to improving data gathering and management to produce high quality and impactful research supporting our recovery from the pandemic. That includes the data and intelligence network, a community of data experts promoting best practice on the sharing and use of data in response to the pandemic. The network has produced a range of resources including a data catalogue and work to improve data set quality. Research Data Scotland provides a way of systematically organising Scotland's data and offering researchers a quicker and clearer access to data. It developed the Covid-19 database for quick data set linkage, now holding 36 data sets and supporting 68 Covid-19 related studies. The business support partnership programme, data and analytics work stream is also seeking to improve data set linkage abilities to gain a more holistic view of business support offered during the pandemic. Brian Whittle. Sorry, Deputy Minister. I should have obviously acceded to the fact that I do have to leave straight after my question about the constituency case. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The cabinet secretary will appreciate that throughout the pandemic having easy access to reliable data on everything from Covid cases to details of businesses eligible for support has proven vital to protecting the public and allowing our response to the virus to be targeted as possible. As we look to recover from the pandemic and build greater resilience against future challenges, does the cabinet secretary agree that improving how the Scottish Government gathers, stores and uses data could bring significant benefits in every policy area from future NHS workforce planning to health outcomes to hitting educational attainment targets? If he does agree with those steps, what steps is the Scottish Government doing to address the shortfall? The issue of data management is central to every aspect of government policy and government actions. It helps us to identify the most effective targeting of support to assist individuals who may face difficulties during the cost of living crisis, for example. It helps us to manage the implications of Covid in the national health service and a whole variety of other elements. The programmes that I have set out through the data intelligence network are designed to ensure that we are constantly reviewing that approach to data management and data handling to ensure that we achieve all of our objectives in this respect and that we can effectively deliver government policy. What we have learnt from the Covid pandemic is that we need to have in place systems that can readily deal with the distribution of resources to a wide range of recipients, whether they are individuals or businesses. That had to be developed at pace during the pandemic, but we are obviously looking to entrench those approaches to ensure that we can be equipped for any eventuality in the future. That is material to the coronavirus recovery and reform bill, with which Mr Whittle is familiar. 3. Greg Hoy To ask the Scottish Government what cross-government discussions regarding the remaining Covid-19 hospital restrictions have taken place as part of its Covid recovery strategy. As Covid-19 infection prevention and control guidance is confined to healthcare settings, there are limited cross-government discussions outside of health directorates regarding Covid-19 mitigations. Development of Scotland hospital Covid-19 guidance is done in conjunction with NSS anti-microbial resistance and infection prevention and control, and supported by the independent expert group Covid-19 nosocomial review group. The Scottish Government continues to work in partnership with NSS and relevant policy teams in reviewing and updating Covid-19 hospital guidance in light of emerging scientific and world health organisation advice. I thank Mr Swinney for that answer, but on-going Covid restrictions in Scotland's NHS are causing avoidable harm to patients and a restricting patient flow, which results in on-going pressure on waiting times. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that appropriate hospital visits play an important role in the patient's treatment and recovery? As part of his Covid recovery strategy, will he commit to working closely with ministerial colleagues and officials to ensure that normal processes and procedures are resumed and maintained in hospitals wherever this is clinically safe and possible? I agree with the last part of Mr Hoy's question that hospital visiting, when it is clinically safe to do so, is absolutely essential, but I rather part company with the start of his question because it rather suggested that that is not the approach that we should take, because all of what the Government is doing is founded in clinical analysis in relation to hospital visiting. I think that we have to be very careful. We are all familiar with the issues of the nosocomial transmission of Covid. We have to be very careful to ensure that we are taking the right clinically advised steps in relation to hospital visiting so that we can protect the population that is in hospital and those who are visiting for legitimate purposes. We will take an approach that is driven by clinical analysis and clinical advice, and it must be, as a consequence of that, we must make sure that it is safe for individuals to be visiting in such a context. Question number four was not lodged. Question number five, Paul MacLennan. To ask the Scottish Government what role a Covid-19 booster vaccination programme this winter will play in its Covid recovery strategy? Vaccination remains a critical component in our response to Covid-19. Since its beginning, the Scottish Government's Covid-19 vaccination programme has been guided by the expert advice provided by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Senior Clinicians. JCV advised in February this year that an autumn-winter booster programme for 2022 is likely to be recommended for those at higher risk of severe Covid-19, such as those of older age and in clinical risk groups. The JCVI will continue its on-going review, and the Scottish Government understands that the committee is likely to make a further announcement with more precise details of timing and eligibility for the anticipated autumn-winter programme in the coming weeks. We stand ready to consider any further guidance on the JCVI as it is issued. I ask what consultations have taken place with local authorities and health boards in regard to possible vaccination venues this winter. There is an on-going dialogue with local authorities and health boards about the delivery of the vaccination programme, particularly in relation to the issues of convenience and locality for individual areas. That is a complex exercise, and the vaccination programme has led to the distribution of, in excess of, 10 million vaccinations in a relatively short space and time. The programme, when it operates at a population-wide scale, opens up different opportunities around locations than if it is a more limited vaccination programme for older people and for the clinically vulnerable. Of course, if the programme is targeted on those groups, the issues of access and locality are ever more significant. I assure Mr MacLennan that those questions will be considered very carefully with local authorities and health boards as we apply the JCVI advice. A constituent caught Covid in February this year, and now three months later she has it again. She is completely vaccinated. It was bad before, but this time it has floored her. Given that Omicron variants BA4 and BA5 waves are on their way, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary is indicating an extension of the booster programme. Could I encourage him to look at this particularly for those aged 50 and over, including those with underlying health conditions, like diabetes or asthma? Will he urge the JCVI to move quickly, given that both those new strains are thought to be very contagious and there is a level of vaccine escape? All of those are legitimate points. I am sorry that Jackie Baillie's constituent has had the experience that she has had. I think that Jackie Baillie will be familiar with the fact that the Government follows and has followed to date. As have other Administrations in the United Kingdom, the advice of the JCVI. We have made clear to the JCVI at different stages our enthusiasm for elements of the vaccination programme to be undertaken and for that to be undertaken perhaps at faster speed than ordinarily might have been the case. I will certainly discuss the issues that she has raised with me with the health secretary, who leads on dialogue with the JCVI in that respect. Fundamentally, Jackie Baillie will understand that the JCVI operates independently of Government and provides high-quality clinical advice to Government. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what modelling it has undertaken to estimate the impact on its Covid recovery strategy of removing population-wide testing and contact tracing at the end of April. The decision to make these changes to our testing policy was informed by the latest available evidence and advice from Public Health officials and clinicians. That included modelling the epidemiological impact of the changes in testing policy. The Scottish Government continues to model the latest Covid-19 trends and the results are published online in the modelling the epidemic report. Alongside our evolving response to the pandemic, the Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy will continue to focus effort and resources on bringing about a fairer future, particularly for those most impacted during the pandemic. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer and ask, given the challenge of new variants most recently identified in Portugal and South Africa, what risk assessment the Scottish Government has done on the impact of ending routine testing, given the on-going health issues raised by Jackie Baillie as well as long Covid, and does the Deputy First Minister agree that without a commitment to free vaccines in low-income countries and across the globe, we are not safe until everyone is safe? I agree entirely with the latter part of Sarah Boyack's question and indeed over the course of the vaccination programme, the Scottish Government has supported practically and in terms of the pressure that we have applied to achieve exactly the objective that Sarah Boyack has set out. As I indicated in my earlier answer, the change to testing policy was included in the modelling of the pandemic. We are continuing to monitor levels of Covid within our society. There are various modelling exercises undertaken in that respect around wastewater, for example, which is showing the declining prevalence of the virus and hospital admissions and cases. In relation to new strains and variants, we will continue to engage with the international clinical community on the research that is emerging in that respect, and we will be able to reflect that in the choices and decisions that we make. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason a number of written parliamentary questions have not received an answer by ministers within the required time scale. The Scottish Government is committed to answering all parliamentary questions as quickly as possible within the deadlines agreed with the Parliament. In the first quarter of 2022, the Government answered 90 per cent of written parliamentary questions on time, exceeding the Parliament's own 80 per cent benchmark. The Government produces quarterly statistics available for the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, which show how many parliamentary questions were cleared after the substantive date and those still outstanding at the time of audit. I thank the minister for that answer, but I think that the number of rise smiles around the chamber probably points to the fact that things are somewhat awry from the picture that he paints. Indeed, there is a growing problem, and it is not just Opposition members, but I have also had this conversation with SNP Bank Bench as well, that there is a problem both with the timeliness but also the quality of answers. I have had three answers that have taken over four months from the cabinet secretary. It is not just timeliness but also the quality. I had an answer from the cabinet secretary for education, which was simply a hyperlink to myjobscotland.gov.uk. Answers that just refer me to Spice, as good as their work is, I know where they are, I can ask them myself. Also, answers that are just links to previous answers, regardless of the rate, sum up to six months old. I want to know the answers from the Government today. Ultimately, it is not just me or other members that the Government is setting down, it is my constituents, because I am asking questions on their behalf. Can I ask the minister to reflect on that? Ultimately, the answers that are given should be considered to be answers to the whole Parliament. If ministers are not happy to answer questions in the way that they do written in the chamber, they should not be submitting them as written answers either. Will the Government undertake to improve matters both in times of time but also, importantly, quality of written parliamentary answers? In regards of time, we are, as I repeat again, 90 per cent in the first quarter were replied in time. However, there are many factors that the member should take into effect with the impact on the time that it takes to provide substantive answers to written PQs, resourcing pressures for the Government's need to prioritise activities, for example, by a response to the pandemic. However, delays can also be caused through difficulty and the interpretation of the questions or by taking steps to ensure that answers are properly researched, accurate and above all open and helpful to members. As always, I will try to be as open and helpful to all members of the chamber at any time. At any time, if the member wishes to have a chat or discussion about any of the issues, my door will always remain open for Mr Johnson and others. Something that interests Stephen Kerr? With no hint of irony at all. With any form of majority government, if anything, it is more important than ever that the strongest standards in transparency and scrutiny are upheld. Just this week, we heard of the abysmal adherence to the freedom of information laws from the SNP Government, with shady interventions from ministerial advisers going undocumented. Written questions are treated with similar disdain by the Scottish Government, often not addressing the question or simply stating that they have already been answered when they haven't. With the Scottish Government in the news for its secretive handling of the ferry's fiasco, should Scottish ministers not be doing far more to earn the public's trust? I think that Mr Kerr will understand that we had a public opinion poll only two weeks ago, and the public trust was with the SNP. Once again, we have Mr Kerr's hyperbole when it comes to his interpretation of what is published out there. I think that we need to be very careful when we are discussing those matters, because Mr Kerr seems to just think that he can say what he likes, when he likes and just shout about absolutely anything and he is correct. His interpretation is not the same as everyone else in this room, so he needs to have a wee thought to himself about how he conducts himself in future. That concludes portfolio questions on Covid-19 recovery and government business. We will now move on to the next portfolio. We will move on to the next item of business now, please, so that everybody is in place. Question 1 on the portfolio net zero energy and transport will be Gordon MacDonald. I would remind all members who wish to ask a supplementary question to please press the request to speak buttons during the relevant question, or to enter the letter R in the chat function. To ask the Scottish Government what measures are available to stakeholders seeking to manage invasive species and mitigate their impact. Invasive non-native species are a key driver of biodiversity loss. It is estimated that they cost the Scottish economy around £300 million annually. The management of INS is fundamental to our efforts in tackling biodiversity loss. The Scottish Government provides funding streams to stakeholders seeking to manage non-native invasive species. Funding has been available, for example, through the forestry grant scheme, the biodiversity challenge fund and, through NatureScot, direct funding for projects of strategic national importance, such as the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative. The new nature restoration fund also includes management and eradication of INS in its objectives. Gordon MacDonald. I thank the minister for that answer. A survey found that there are an American mink present in the Pentland Hills regional park in my constituency and that their presence can have an absolutely devastating impact on native mammals and ground nesting birds. Does the minister share my view that there is a pressing need to keep the impact of invasive species on Scotland's ecosystems to an absolute minimum and that steps should be taken to ensure that they do not undermine work to restore and enhance biodiversity? I share my view. That is why we are providing support to projects such as the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative, which is tackling both invasive plants and mink along rivers in an area of 29,500 square kilometres in northern Scotland, and more than a third of Scotland's total area. In the past four years, more than £1.5 million has been invested via the Scottish Rural Development programme to tackle rhododendron, which threatens our precious Atlantic rainforest. However, we recognise that there is always more that can be done. There are a number of supplementaries. I take the first one from Maurice Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Beaver activity can and is having a negative impact on farmland, biodiversity and rural communities, especially in Tayside, where they were released either accidentally or illegally. The Scottish Government's new translocation scheme aims to help, but it still lacks details, so can the minister provide answers to the following questions? When will the new rules launch? How many trappers have been trained? How many translocation sites have been identified? How long will the scheme be funded? I thank the member very much for that question. I am really excited about our Beaver translocation initiative. It is an excellent way of managing where there are conflicts between beavers and other land users. Although I disagree with the member about biodiversity loss, beavers are excellent at improving biodiversity by creating natural wetlands. They are a reintroduced species. When my father grew up here, there were no beavers and they were extinct, so that is a success in Scotland. We are going to publish a new beaver strategy. I believe that that is to be published in June, and I very much expect that that member's answers will be in that strategy. What measures are available to the Scottish Government to ensure that invasive species are not being brought into Scotland through international airports? I thank the member very much for that question. Of course, that is a very live issue for us, given the issues around Brexit and the now delay of 18 more months on the checks at the border checks. That is a particular concern to my plant health colleagues. We are very concerned about biosecurity, and I am happy to write to the member in more detail about that. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on using Scottish Waters Reserves to fund a £100 rebate for customers. It is vitally important that Scottish Water continue to invest in infrastructure to provide a high-quality service to the people of Scotland. Revenue raised from customer charges is essential to deliver Scottish Waters investment programme. Scottish Waters cash balance is not a surplus of funds. It is substantially allocated at any time to investment projects on a rolling basis. The average water charges in Scotland is already lower than that of the average in England and Wales. Also from 1 April 2021, we increased the maximum discount available from the water charges reduction scheme, which is available to customers in full and receipt of full council tax reduction to 35 per cent, up from 25 per cent. That enhanced scheme is providing support to over 470,000 customers. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that response, but at a time when Scots are experiencing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, Scottish Water is sitting on at least £500 million of reserves, and its senior executives are getting eye-watering bonuses—not salaries, but bonuses—of £92,000, three times the average wage. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is right? Will he now roll out further rises of RPI plus 2 per cent for next year, given that inflation is expected to be at least 10 per cent? As I mentioned, cash reserves that Scottish Water hold are not a surplus of funds. They are cash reserves that are there for identified projects that have to be delivered. They have to then hold working cash balance, which is allocated as those investments roll out, and it must hold that within it. That is exactly what that funding is helpful for. That will go up and down during the course of the year and over different years. It is important that the member understands how the budgeting process operates, which he clearly does not give her a question. The member will recognise that, by extending the council tax support scheme that we provide for Scottish Water charges, it means that, because we have extended it to 35 per cent, it means that those households that are in receipt of full council tax reduction discounts pay less in this year's water rates than it did back in 2021. The member will recognise that targeting support during the cost of living crisis to those households who have the lowest income is a key priority. That is exactly what the scheme does. It supports those households who have the lowest income to assist them with their water charges. Actually, this year, it reduces their water charges. On a very rough calculation, the chief executive officer and managers of this publicly funded company cost around £1.5 million, as well as the bonuses that Jackie Baillie talked about. Has the cabinet secretary reviewed whether such spend provides value to the public purse and considered whether such public funds could be used to reduce bills? As the member will recognise, the board of Scottish Water is responsible for the rumination package of its staff, including its chief executive. When it comes to value for money, we just have to look at the base salary packages for some of the water organisations in England, where they go up to almost, in some cases, almost £1 million. Clearly, the level that Scottish Water's chief executive has paid at is considerably lower for a comparable-sized organisation in other parts of the UK, but it is important that we make sure that we are using public money efficiently. I am sure that the member will recognise that Scottish Water has now been voted by its customers as one of the most efficient and effective public utilities in the UK, given the progress that it has made in its investment, recognising the significant progress that it has made. The important thing is that the money in Scottish Water that it makes stays in Scottish Water, unlike the privatised systems that the Tories operate in. To ask the Scottish Government how it will respond to the UK Government's consultation launched on 9 May regarding the proposed expansion of its warm home discount scheme. Minister Patrick Harvie. The warm home discount is a GB scheme, providing an annual £140 rebate to around 210,000 vulnerable Scottish households. Last year, we proposed an expanded replacement scheme, but this, sadly, was not agreed by the UK Government. The UK's new consultation proposes to continue the current scheme separately in Scotland with just a £10 increase. We will, of course, be urging the UK Government to listen to Scottish stakeholders and to do much more to protect the most vulnerable households. Is my understanding that the uplift would mean that rebates are provided to an additional 50,000 families in Scotland on top of the 230,000 already receiving rebate payments? I ask the minister to confirm that he is not in any way going to disrupt the additional payments, which could be very considerably important to families across Scotland, including in mid Scotland in Fife. Minister. Well, Liz Smith is correct about that figure of 50,000 more households. I think that it is worth putting that in context, of course, because the price cap rise last autumn created 50,000 more fuel-poor households. Then it rose again in April, pushing 140,000 more households in Scotland into fuel poverty. Further, big increases in energy prices are anticipated in October, and we fear that that could see almost a million Scottish households in fuel poverty by this winter. In comparison with those figures, I hope that Liz Smith will acknowledge that extending support to 50,000 is a pretty paltry response to the cost of living crisis that the Conservative Government is overseeing. Does the cabinet secretary exercise the minister's knowledge that, while all measures to support households with rising energy prices, including energy efficiency measures, are welcome, the crisis is now. Although existing measures, including the warm homes discount consultation and that further £13 million is welcome, support is not being put in place fast enough or at the scale that is needed. With Ofger now estimating that 613,000 households in Scotland are in fuel poverty, what discussions has the minister had with the UK Government about more immediate assistance to deal with energy price increases now? As a wait-and-see approach set out by the UK minister, Greg Hans, last week to our parliamentary committee, is just not acceptable or good enough? I certainly agree with Fiona Heslop's characterisation of the scale and pace of a response that is required and that that is very clearly lacking from the UK Government. I mentioned in my first answer that we have repeatedly proposed improvements to the warm homes discount and expanded scheme that would be combined with other measures in Scotland, and the UK Government chose not to take up our proposals and to delay any confirmation even of the continuation of the scheme. I do hope that the UK Government will do more. It is very clear that there is huge pressure on them, even from some of their own backbenchers, to do more and to act more swiftly to support people in relation to the cost of living crisis. The figures that I mentioned earlier speak for themselves about the scale of response that is required. That will be a life or death decision for some individuals and families this year and as we approach the autumn. I very much hope that the UK Government will reconsider its approach and do so urgently. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government will continue to do everything that we can with our powers, and in particular with the energy efficiency measures that we are supporting to cut people's fuel bills that way. While it is great that many people are getting help with new boilers under the warmer homes Scotland scheme, the decision in May 2017 to its good non-traditional construction properties from funding for external wall insulation means that a lot of expensive energy is still wasted. That affects many local authority houses. Would the Scottish Government consider a review given the current cost of living crisis? While those types of properties are included as part of our fuel poverty and energy efficiency scheme, for example, we have provided £64 million to local authorities to deliver external wall insulation through our area-based schemes this year. Those local schemes target fuel poverty and benefit exactly the kind of hard-to-treat properties that the member describes. The approach has improved the homes of more than 100,000 fuel-poor households since 2013. Many of those properties are external authority properties in mixed tenure blocks. They are often very technically complex to insulate and require other essential repairs. The neighbourhood approach to improvements is often the best solution all-round. We are continuing to look at more ways to provide help with insulation, and over the coming months we will consider all the options to insulate and improve more homes. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with ScotRail regarding returning rail services to pre-pandemic levels. Throughout the pandemic, Transport Scotland officials have worked closely with the rail industry via the rail recovery task force to ensure that scheduled train services have met overall passenger demands. While passenger demand remains well below that scene prior to the pandemic, I fully expect ScotRail to keep its timetable under review, with scope to adapt where feasible to provide the most reliable service for passengers. The minister omitted to mention that ScotRail revealed that from next week, nearly one-third of its services will be cut. That is 600 daily services across Scotland, and at this rate they will have more ferries than trains. That will cause absolute misery for passengers up and down the country. Minister, do you share ScotRail's view that the unions and drivers are to blame? If not, who is responsible for another calamitous chapter in SNP's nationalised rail? I do not agree with the characterisation from Mr Finlay of this Government's handling of bringing rail services into public ownership. However, to reflect on some of the substantive points that he has made today, I think that we have seen 225 services affected with 138 full cancellations, so I would encourage any passengers who are watching to please check online in terms of the availability of services today. Mr Finlay is correct that, due to some drivers not taking up the option of overtime, Sunday and rest day working, ScotRail has announced today plans to run a temporary reduced timetable from 23 May, which is next week, to give a more stable and reliable service for passengers. We know that people want certainty when they travel, and ScotRail has therefore looked at how best to give that certainty during what is a really challenging time for passengers. I recognise that absolutely. The temporary timetable will see services reduced by a level, but ScotRail will keep that under review, which is hugely important. It is worth saying that an extension to the rest-day working arrangements and additional payments for staff was negotiated with ASLEF, and it continues to be in place until October of this year. I appeal to a union to campaigned so strongly for public ownership to come back to the table to negotiate an agreement so that we can deliver on the timetable expectations, which should have been coming forward from last week with the new timetable. The approach that the Tories have taken to rail relations elsewhere in the UK is a prime example of how not to engage with a workforce. The UK Government refused to increase pay during the pandemic, and recently we had a communications chief at Network Rail saying that rail workers should have probably worked harder at school. Does the minister share my disgust at these events, and will she join me in condemning the disdainful attitude of the Tories towards rail workers? Minister, please extract the relevant bits to the initial question. Minister, in your response, if you could respond to what the member was trying to get at in terms of the fact that a supplementary must be relevant to the initial question. It is disappointing that the UK Government appears not to be doing more to resolve the dispute south of the border. However, in Scotland, we have ensured that our general-grade non-driving railway staff have already received the previously negotiated and agreed 2.2 per cent for this year, while negotiations continue with both ASLEF and the RMT. Can the minister tell us how long the devastating 30 per cent cut in services will go on for? As I have already alluded in my response to Mr Finlay, the situation will be kept under review. I think that it is worth saying that without Covid and the impact on training, Scotland would have trained an extra 130 drivers by this point. That would have eliminated Scotland's need for drivers to work overtime in recess, but I will be speaking to Scotland later this week to ask for the update that Mr Simpson has requested. I will be more than happy to share any further details on that with him. Before I turn to the next question, could I please have less commentary from a sedentary position and a bit more courtesy and respect on the part of all members to each other? Question 5, Emma Harper. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with TransPenn and Express Network Rail Scotland regarding the reported frequent cancellation of rail services on the west coast mainline, particularly impacting travellers using rail services at Lockerbie station. Rail services run by Avanti, West Coast and TransPennine Express Scotland at Lockerbie railway station are cross-border rail operators that are managed by the Department for Transport, though Transport Scotland participates in regular cross-border operator task force meetings. For the first part of this year, TransPennine Express services in particular have been impacted by the Covid-related issues and industrial action. However, recent performance data shows an improvement since February this year and from this week, and I can advise that TransPennine Express has increased calls at Lockerbie offering customers broadly and early service northwards and southwards on weekdays. I thank the minister for that response. Passengers need assurance that services will be available and on time. I know that the Scottish Government does not have control over TransPennine Express, but would the minister agree with me that the sooner rail is fully devolved, the quicker we can provide certainty to passengers travelling to and from Lockerbie station? Emma Harper is right. We need certainty for passengers in terms of travelling and in terms of which services are operating. We heard that in the previous question. Mr Harper is also right to say that full devolution of rail powers is the long-stated aim of this Government, bringing track and train together and ensuring that we have the levers we need to create that sustainable rail service into the future. In the meantime, passengers must be reassured that, during times of disruption, alternative options are available. I will raise the services at Lockerbie directly with the UK rail minister when I meet her next week. Officials will follow up with the operators to see what we can do to help to improve on people's recent experience on that particular service. This is the worst train service in Britain. There is a fair bit of competition for that title. The problems are not new. Passengers from Lockerbie station have been treated as second class since this very franchise began. When the minister meets her UK counterpart, will she join me in calling for an end to this failed franchise and it brought under new management? I will raise some of the issues that Mr Smith has alluded to in terms of his constituents' experience of this service. I have a suggestion that the minister will find might focus the minds of the Government. Will the minister make a commitment that for every day there is strike disruption, the ministerial limos will remain parked in solidarity with the ScotRail passengers? Yes or no? I do not really think that that is relevant at all. I appreciate the member's wish to try to conflate the two issues, but if the minister wishes to make some comment and response, please go ahead. No, Presiding Officer. I do not see the relevance of that to this question at all. Mr Kerr, perhaps we could just do comments through the chairs. Thank you very much indeed. Question 6, Clare Baker. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress with the Levenmouth rail link, including the planned reopening date. We are committed to delivering the new railway that will reintroduce passenger services for the first time in more than 50 years, benefiting communities, businesses and visitors in the Levenmouth area. Transport Scotland and Network Rail are working closely with their industry partners and currently expect to deliver the transformational project by spring 2024. Construction is under way, with the first mile of track and drainage already completed. Work continues on the route structures and site compounds are being established at key locations to provide strategic links to on-site activities. The minister will be aware of the strong desire from the community for the rail link to be the best that it can be. What discussions has he had with Network Rail about the delay in the public consultation and the need to get that under way? In recognising the importance of the community's input into the station design in particular, what flexibilities are there in the budget for a station that would meet the needs and ambitions of the community and is designed for a growing population? I am grateful to Clare Baker for that supplementary. There is currently consultation being undertaken and it is important that that is undertaken comprehensively. I hope that Clare Baker will join me in congratulating the communities that campaigned long and hard to ensure that we have reached the point where we can see the completion of the project in the very near future. I will happily write to Clare Baker regarding the budget issues that she raises, but I would hope that, for the time being, she agrees that consultation should be undertaken and that the time is necessary to ensure that people's voices in communities affected are heard. It has been a dream come true for communities who campaigned for the Levenmouth Rail route to now see the tracks actually being relayed. The route also opens up opportunities for a rail fate facility working with Diagio, Malcolm's and other local businesses. Minister, it took 17 years for the Highland Spring Rail fate facility to be designed, developed and built. What role can Transport Scotland play in accelerating the development of a rail freight facility on the Levenmouth line, especially given the climate emergency? Mark Ruskell is right to acknowledge the hard work of campaigners and the positive opportunities for expansion of rail freight. That is an economic as well as an environmental opportunity. The Scottish Government is leading the way with the first of the kind of target for growth of rail freight, as well as significant investment. We look forward to opportunities to include rail freight within all of our investment, and our approach to Levenmouth Railway is no different. We are working with stakeholders, including local businesses and Fife Council, to ensure that we maximise the economic, social and environmental benefits for the area. I am sure that we will all commit to continuing to proceed with that with the momentum that Mark Ruskell's question demands. Before I call question 7, I would like to take both questions 7 and 8, but I really need brief questions and brief answers. Question 7, David Torrance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government how my ambition is expressed in the first annual report to Parliament on the progress in developing the environment strategy for Scotland coincides with the findings of the latest IPCC report. Minister Mary McCallan. The Scottish Government's environment strategy sets out our overarching environmental response to the global climate and nature crisis. Recent reports from the IPCC, as highlighted by the member, show that increased urgency of those efforts. The environment strategy progress report, which will be published in March, recognised that, while Scotland has made great progress in cutting our emissions, we must now go further and faster to reach our target of 75% reduction by 2030. We are considering all options on how to accelerate that progress. David Torrance. I thank the minister for that answer. Leading scientists previously stated in the wake of the latest IPCC report that the UK Government is moving too slowly to tackle a climate emergency. Meanwhile, the UK Government's Brexit minister declared that he supports exploiting every last cubic inch of gas from the North Sea. Does the minister share my concern that, if Tories get their own way, Brexit will become an act of environmental as well as social and economic vandalism? I absolutely do. The Scottish Government has made clear our commitment to remain aligned with the EU on environmental standards. The EU, of course, is a beacon of progress in environmental policy. That is, in stark contrast, to the UK Government, whose cringeworthy entitled Brexit freedoms bill seems intent to abandon legislation that has protected Scotland's environmental interests for almost 50 years. The Scottish Government's support is giving to local authorities to enable them to reduce scope-three emissions. Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson. A Scottish Government is committed to continuing working closer with local authorities to tackle the global climate emergency. We published new climate reporting guidance to public bodies, including local authorities, in October 2021, which included specific guidance on reducing indirect scope-three emissions. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and the Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance also wrote to the chief officers and public bodies on 16 March 2021, with a call to action to decarbonise the £13.3 billion annual public sector supply chain. A follow-up Scottish Government procurement note in 2020 also highlighted the national sustainable procurement tools in order to support that work going forward. The Scottish Government has not set a target for reductions in scope-three emissions. That is a hugely important part of emissions from local authorities, covering, as the cabinet secretary said, procurement and supply chain issues. Instead of working with councils and offering support and expertise in funding, they have simply given an exemption when it is inconvenient to do the work. Why has the Scottish Government simply abandoned this issue because it is too hard? It becomes a pattern in here with Mr Kerr getting things badly wrong. The Scottish Government has already issued a guidance on the regulations that were approved by the Parliament back in Ducott previously, which have been set out for local authorities. It says very clearly the responsibility that they require through the new guidance that public bodies need to publish details on what they are doing to tackle scope-three emissions, which is part of the procurement duty process. Importantly, which I am sure Mr Kerr will welcome, the data that was published recently, shows that emissions from public bodies operations and electricity use has fallen by a third since 2015-16. Emissions from public bodies and electricity use has halved since 2015-16. It clearly does not like the information that I am providing it with. I have already asked members if they will please listen to the answers given in terms of ensuring that the question session is meaningful. What I am asking for is an answer to the question that I asked. Not what he has written down in front of him from a civil service briefing. Mr Kerr, that is not a point of order. The chair is not responsible for the substance of ministerial responses or indeed anybody's responses. I would ask, please, for some courtesy and respect right across the chamber so that we can ensure that we make these sessions as productive as possible for all. Please resume, cabinet secretary. There are many other useful data points that I could give to Mr Kerr, which I am sure he would not like to hear as well because it would not feed the narrative that he has about trying to talk down on local authorities. However, the final point that I will make is that Mr Kerr will recognise that the regulations have been put in place—well, I think that he now recognises that the regulations have been put in place—but it is for local authorities as corporate bodies to set their target dates. That means that it is for local elected members that are responsible for setting out how they will do that. That is for local councillors who were diselected over two weeks ago. I know that the elections two weeks ago were not good for Mr Kerr and his party, but I trust local authorities to get that right. It is very clear from their track record over recent years that they are doing exactly that, but they will be doing it this time, with even less Tories involved in doing it. That concludes portfolio questions, and there will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to move positions should they wish.