 I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions and the first portfolio is Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should indicate so by pressing the request-to-speak button or by entering R in the chatroom function. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for the future of the Covid-19 certification scheme. We have lifted the legal requirement for venues to operate a Covid certification scheme. Some venues may opt to use certification to make their customers and staff feel safer. The Covid status app will remain in place for as long as it is needed to facilitate international travel. A domestic certification scheme will remain in our package of protective measures and may be used if required in the future to manage Covid outbreaks, though we hope that that will not be necessary. I am very grateful for the Deputy First Minister for that reply. In her Covid statement last month, as the DFM has just said, the First Minister said that these passes would be retained on a voluntary basis for any business that wanted to use them. That effectively creates an unregulated scheme, with businesses free to refuse custom to anyone on the basis of them not having the right piece of paper or the correct barcode on their phone. There was no suggestion of when that would end. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that creates a potentially dangerous loophole where the liberties and rights of Scots to medical privacy could be undermined indefinitely? No, I do not take that view because the arrangements around the Covid certification app and the gathering and the handling of and processing of information is all very carefully regulated and compliant. Any business has to be mindful of its own policies, decisions and legal obligations in the way in which it would administer any scheme. I am satisfied about legal compliance, and the owners are on a business to ensure that they too are operating with legal compliance. Given that the entire debacle has cost a taxpayer £7 million, which went to Danish and American companies to build an app that many Scottish companies, including those in 4th Valley, could have made cheaper and more effectively, what lessons has the Deputy First Minister learned from this experience, and what does he plan to do to ensure that such a thing does not happen again? I do not recognise the characterisation that Mr Kerr puts on that. There is an open procurement process in which the Government has to ensure that those services are procured properly and with legal compliance, and that has been followed in those circumstances. The scheme was expanded significantly beyond its original purpose, which is why it costs more money. Clearly, if we expand the scheme beyond its original concept, it is going to cost more money. I think that that is just as straightforward as B following A. The Government suggests all of its decisions to careful scrutiny about financial handling, legal compliance and compliance with other regulatory arrangements, and that scheme has complied in every aspect. Of course, I stress that it is a valuable tool in ensuring that we can take the necessary steps to suppress the circulation of the virus. For international travellers, it is a crucial piece of evidence to enable individuals to undertake international travel. If Mr Kerr wants to support our airports in trying to attract more customers, those individual airports will require their customers to be able to comply with the requirements of the Covid status app. 2. Rona Mackay To ask the Scottish Government what work and action across the Government is undertaking to support local authorities and local communities in their recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the Government, we are working closely with our partners in local government and the third sector to deliver outcomes that will bring about a fairer future, particularly for those who have been most affected during the pandemic. By working together, we will align services around the individuals and the families who need them. The Covid recovery strategy sets out clearly the outcomes that we will improve for communities. We will increase financial security for low-income households, enhance the wellbeing of children and young people, and create good, green jobs and fair work through a package of targeted actions. Alongside the presence of COSLA, I chaired the Covid recovery strategy programme board, and last week we met to progress further this ambitious transformation of public services. 3. Rona Mackay Businesses will play a crucial role in recovery of local communities up and down the country. However, large rises in energy bills and increased costs for everyday essentials and rising interest rates will mean that businesses will see their margins squeezed. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister whether he considers that the measures that were set out in the Chancellor's statement just hours ago will have any substantive effect on businesses already struggling with Brexit-related import costs, supply chain problems and the high streets that serve our communities trying to recover from the impacts of the pandemic? I haven't had a lengthy opportunity because of other business to take in all the details of the spring statement. However, I do not think that I heard enough in that statement to be confident that businesses have been protected from the challenges that are being faced. There will be some measures that will have an effect such as the reduction in fuel duty, but the implications of Brexit and particularly on the availability of labour are absolutely colossal challenges for the business sector. I hear about it every week in my constituency from organisations that cannot recruit enough staff because of the removal of free movement of EU citizens. I do not think that what I have heard so far today will give me confidence that the business community has been given the support that it requires to address the challenges that are currently faced by businesses. Universities are a vital part of many local communities and we must ensure that they recover from the pandemic in a way that protects the health of students and staff. However, in light of rising Covid cases nationally, we continue to see outbreaks at universities such as St Andrews, where more than 450 students tested positive in a single week. Does the Scottish Government agree that we should be looking at continuing to mandate protections such as face coverings, testing on campuses, social distancing and ventilation in our universities? I acknowledge the significance of the points that Ms Fialwa puts to me because we are obviously at this present moment going through very significant levels of community transmission and that is presenting itself in a number of ways in university and college campuses around the country, where it is important that we are taking every measure to sustain the education of young people and to protect their safety into the bargain. In the strategic framework that the Government has published, there are a range of baseline measures that we expect institutions to be taking forward. Some of those will be around ventilation, for example. Obviously, we have a mandatory position on face coverings. As Ms Fialwa will realise, that is not universally welcomed within Parliament. The Conservative party has vigorously opposed our extension of the face coverings measures, but I think that they are appropriate for this moment, given the significance of the challenges that we face. Of course, the Cabinet will consider those measures for review at its meeting on Tuesday, and there will be a statement to Parliament next week about those issues. Additional funding given to the third sector during the pandemic was much needed and essential to allow them to offer the support to families that they did. However, this year's budget hands a cut of around £1 million to third sector organisations. The need for their advice and services has never been more required, particularly as we recover from the pandemic, but also in the cost of living crisis and, of course, as a result of the war in Ukraine and people coming here to take refuge. What engagement is the Scottish Government having with the third sector to ensure that adequate funding arrangements are in place and can it provide an update on any further consideration that is given to developing multi-year funding models? The question of multi-year funding models is an issue that arises from the degree of prospective information that we have on the financial arrangements from the United Kingdom Government. We are now in a different situation at this moment, because we now have a longer line of sight than we have had for a number of years, and, obviously, the French Secretary will reflect on those points, because it is desirable for us to give multi-year settlements. I know that that is a position that the French Secretary has shared with the third sector. I encourage Pam Duncan-Glancy to look at all budget lines, not just individual budget lines, where there may be changes that members would like to see reversed. There is a range of different funding streams that the Government is making available to third sector organisations. Indeed, in the Covid recovery strategy, there is a very heavy emphasis on the role of the third sector in supporting the work on Covid recovery. There will be more said, of course, tomorrow, when the Social Justice Secretary sets out the approach on the child poverty implementation plan. That information will be shared with Parliament tomorrow. Obviously, the third sector is critical in supporting our work to eliminate child poverty in our country. Question 3, not lost. Question 4, Edward Mountain. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of FOI requests made to it were answered within 20 working days within the last 12 months. Minister George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the member for his question. Over the 2021 calendar year, we have responded to over 4,000 FOI requests, 86 per cent of which were answered within the statutory deadline. That is broadly in line with the average of, for other Scottish public authorities, and represents continued recovery of our performance in the start of the pandemic. That is interesting, Presiding Officer, and I thank the Minister for that answer. I have had numerous examples, perhaps it is just me, where FOI requests have not been responded to within time limits, even ones that I have had to appeal. Even such a simple question as when will vessels 801 and 802 be delivered has been left unanswered for over four weeks? Surely a Government Minister with her finger on the pulse should know the answer to that, and will the Minister undertake to look at the 14 per cent that did not make the cut and find out why? A simple answer to the question asked by Mr Mountain. There are other ways of parliamentary scrutiny that he can ask questions by a parliamentary question, which is a PQ. He can do that as well, so there are opportunities. The minister, could you resume me a second? Could we please have a less sedentary comment? A question has been asked, please let the minister answer. That is the courteous way to proceed. Minister, please resume. Just in summary, Presiding Officer, there are more than adequate measures for members to be able to ask questions of anything that they wish within this chamber. Question 5, Sharon Dowie. To ask the Scottish Government how its policies and actions across Government will support South Ayrshire to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. Priorities for recovery will vary by location and we are committed across Government to working with communities to understand local needs and tailor services to support them. We announced an £80 million of Covid economic recovery fund for local authorities to target support for businesses and communities, and South Ayrshire will receive more than £1.68 million and will have full discretion over how to target support to maximise economic recovery. Further to this, the Scottish Government is investing £103 million in the Ayrshire growth deal, which will see transformational investment in projects across Ayrshire to support long-term inclusive growth. Regional partners estimate that the deal will create 7,000 new jobs and unlock an additional £300 million from the private sector. Sharon Dowie. In my constituency, I was proud to see both communities and third sector organisations coming together to support South Ayrshire lifeline when the pandemic began. That allowed them to expand services like their helpline, other prescription, collection and distribution network, but this would not be possible without people going above and beyond for their communities. Will the Deputy First Minister outline how the Scottish Government will continue to fund the third sector and retain people in local organisations? I think that this is a very important issue, and the type of services that Sharon Dowie talks about are increasingly evident within our communities and are increasingly developing, because capacity has been built within communities to make sure that these services and support can be available on an ongoing basis. I had a very helpful conversation just last week with a number of community development organisations to establish how the very good example that Sharon Dowie puts to me can be replicated in other parts of the country. There are many other comparable examples that are working well. I am keen to explore how we can ensure that capacity exists, not just to deal with a Covid situation, but it may be relevant for a winter weather situation or a flooding situation, or other examples where we can build community capacity to assist the public services in addressing need within communities. I welcome information about the example that Sharon Dowie has put to me, and I am sure that the Government is keen to build that community capacity. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how much money the Scottish Government has spent in South Asia to mitigate the UK Government's policies that are hitting families in my constituency hard as we recover from the pandemic? There are a number of funding streams that the Government has made available in the South Asia area. Obviously, in the local government franc settlement, the local authority in South Asia is receiving funding of £247.6 million, which represents a real-terms increase of 8.2 per cent for South Asia. There is also a cost of living support of nearly £5 million, which will be made available to South Asia. In addition to that, South Asia Council was allocated £533,000 from the flexible element of the winter support fund, and we also allocated more than £1.7 million in discretionary housing payment to South Asia Council to fully mitigate against the damaging effects of the UK Government's bedroom tax. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken with ministerial colleagues across government to ensure that Scotland's recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic addresses the reported disproportionate impact of the pandemic on low-income households. Our strategy is focused on those most affected during the pandemic and on creating a fairer future for everyone affected. We will do that by transforming public services to ensure that they are person-centred in design and delivery, working closely with our partners, including COSA, local government, the third sector and the private sector. That will multiply the impact of our actions and support communities and the most vulnerable to thrive. The Government has declared tackling child poverty and national mission and is working to mobilise all of Scotland to help us achieve that goal. We will publish the second tackling child poverty delivery plan tomorrow, which will outcome the transformational actions that we will take alongside our delivery partners to tackle child poverty, which lies at the very heart of the Covid recovery strategy. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that response. Recent polling suggests that more than 80 per cent of people in Scotland are worried about the Tory cost of living crisis with food, fuel and household bills skyrocketing. As inflation soars to a 30-year high, does the Deputy First Minister consider that the UK Government's spring budget goes anywhere near far enough to reverse the damage caused by a decade of Tory cuts? Without drastic action, those low-income households will not be a part of Scotland's recovery. I have highlighted at the heart of our Covid recovery strategy the drive to tackle and eliminate child poverty. On the one hand, the Scottish Government has just taken a decision, announced in the budget in December to be applied in the next financial year, to increase the Scottish child payment, but at the same time the United Kingdom Government has removed important increases that were put in place on universal credit. There is one glaring example where the Scottish Government is trying to act to tackle child poverty and our efforts are undermined by the actions of the United Kingdom Government. As I said in my answer to Rona Mackay, I have not had a large amount of time to take in all the details of the spring statement, but I have heard a very strong contribution from my parliamentary colleague Alison Thoulas in the budget statement, which made the point that not nearly enough had been taken to tackle the effects of poverty on low-income households. That is obviously at the heart of the Scottish Government strategy, and we would like to have our actions reinforced, not undermined, by the UK Government. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will remove the provisions on the extension of emergency powers from the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland bill. The Government will, of course, consider carefully the views of Parliament as it completes stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. However, I must stress that removing key provisions from the bill in the way that Ms Bailey suggests would mean that Scotland would not have the public health protection measures in place that are needed to counter future public health threats. I do not believe that that is in the public interest. The Deputy First Minister has chosen to use the made affirmative procedure, which means that measures can be routinely introduced without parliamentary scrutiny or approval in advance. That does not allow for consultation, it does not allow for the voice of our constituents to be heard in this chamber. The Parliament has demonstrated that it can operate quickly. Let me remind Mr Swinney of primary legislation that we passed in a week—indeed, it was the very first bill considered by the Parliament—and Covid bills were subsequently done in a matter of days. So rather than risk the other positive measures in the bill, will John Swinney change the provisions on the extension of emergency powers so that they are at least subject to scrutiny in advance? I do not think that Jackie Baillie's characterisation of the issue is appropriate in these circumstances. The made affirmative procedure is only ever used where time circumstances do not allow us to undertake the normal consultation and dialogue around the affirmative procedure. I have gone on the record with the delegated powers and law reform committee to make it clear that the Government does not routinely intend to utilise the made affirmative procedure. We would prefer to use the affirmative process to enable the type of dialogue that Jackie Baillie talks about. What the Government is trying to do—and I am very keen to engage with Parliament on this question—is make sure that we have a statute book that enables us, having learnt the lessons of Covid, to respond swiftly and promptly to challenges that may come towards us. Jackie Baillie knows the issues of Covid well. She knows how quickly events have changed in front of us. The legislative framework that we are putting in place is designed to create that capacity to act swiftly. I am keen to make sure that I work with parliamentary colleagues to try to address the legitimate concerns on this question. Fundamentally, we must have a statute book that is fit to deal with the challenges of the pandemic. That is my objective in this legislation. I have received a number of requests for supplementaries. I intend to take each of them. Cabinet Secretary, to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise in advance of emergency powers being acted, could we agree a raft of emergency powers, leave them dormant and then, if the need arises, we can get a statement, either virtual or in person, and within the time it would take to play a football match, we would be able to grant the Government the powers? That is a rather interesting development of the Conservative position, which I am going to say that I am very happy to explore with the Conservatives, since we are now talking to Turkey about this issue. I think that this is very welcome. Maybe Jackie Baillie will be catching up with the new reformist thinking of the Conservatives, once again, who have moved ahead and dumped Jackie Baillie from the Better Together alliance. I welcome Dr Gahane's suggestion. What we are trying to do—and I come back to what I said to Jackie Baillie—is to make sure that there is a framework of legislation in place that enables Parliament to act quickly where we require to do so. Dr Gahane offers an interesting perspective on that. It is obviously something that can be advanced within the legislative process and if he would care to write to me, and I would be very happy to have a meeting with him and his colleagues to explore what might be involved in some of those questions, because, as always, I am very keen to build consensus within this parliamentary issue. That is a very interesting development of the Government's position, because when I asked the very same question to the Education Secretary in the Education Committee, she rejected it out of hand, so I would suggest a better co-ordination on the Government's side. The Children's Commissioner gave some very important evidence to the Education Committee about the bill. The commissioner said that there are considerable concerns that permanent powers may not be lawful under article 15 of the ECHR. Why is the Deputy First Minister ignoring the concerns of the Children's Commissioner? I am not ignoring them. I am addressing them. I understand the perspective of commentators and commissioners, but ministers have duties to protect public health. People like Mr Rennie come here and complain if ministers do not act quick enough to protect public health. He speaks, he said, and I have sat here and listened to him complaining about ministers not acting quickly enough to do certain things. I am very happy to engage in discussion and dialogue about the provisions of the bill, but there is one point that is absolutely fundamental. We must have a legislative framework in place that will allow us to act quickly should the circumstances arise. That is the purpose of the legislation, and that is what the Government will engage constructively with Parliament to try to achieve. The Opposition members are often whining when Scotland is a little bit different from England, so can the Deputy First Minister clarify whether those provisions move us closer to the provisions in England or further away? The statute book in England in Wales contains many of those provisions, which have enabled the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly Government to act within their legal framework in a swift and immediate fashion. One of the points that Mr Mason characterised, how the Opposition parties sometimes contribute to the debate, I will not comment on his assessment, but what I will say is that the Opposition often comes here and asks us to learn lessons, and we have learned a lesson from the pandemic, and that is that our statutory framework was not adequate to deal with those issues, and that is what I am trying to address in the legislation that is before Parliament. To ask the Scottish Government how its policies across the Government will support people living in Glasgow to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. By working collaboratively with our partners in local government, to business in the third sector, we will deliver a strong recovery that meets the specific needs to each area. For example, the Glasgow City Region Deal empowers Glasgow and its city region partners to identify, manage and deliver a programme of investment to stimulate economic growth and create jobs in their areas, supporting the region to achieve its shared long-term vision for the local economy. The Government is actively involved in dialogue with the Glasgow City Region Deal, and we will continue that dialogue with our focus on recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. A report published last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that Glasgow had slower growth in Aberdeen and Edinburgh in 2021, and that will continue this year. UK average growth across 50 cities measured in the report was 7.4 per cent, but worryingly Glasgow is only 4.4 per cent. Yesterday, the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, in an excellent report, published its report and highlighted the airports in Scotland, the bosses of AGS, who own Glasgow and Aberdeen, noted that the pandemic had set their sights back a decade, not just for the loss of passengers but the loss of connectivity to the whole of Glasgow and its city regions. Therefore, what more evidence does the Government need is that Glasgow is in trouble and it needs more assistance, special attention, so could the Government elaborate a bit more on what intervention it would seek to help Glasgow City Region? I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that every part of the country is supported to recover, and it is vital that that is the case in the city of Glasgow and in the city region area. The Government is engaged with the city region partnership. We take a range of different interventions and measures to enhance the transport infrastructure to ensure that there is adequate connectivity. Ministerial colleagues are actively involved in discussions on those questions with the relevant organisations. We have a skills investment in the college and university sector in Glasgow in the west of Scotland, which is very significant to ensure that the skills that are required for the future are adequately delivered. We are also supporting the recovery of some key sectors that are affected by the pandemic. If we look at the overall position on economic recovery, the economy is broadly back to where it was pre-pandemic. The key challenge is to ensure that the many strengths of the city of Glasgow and its surrounding areas are built upon to ensure that all citizens can appreciate and enjoy the proceeds of economic growth and opportunity. That is at the heart of the dialogue between the Government and local authorities. Can the DfFM touch on how much Glasgow stands to benefit from the regional economic partnership fund and how the Scottish Government envisions that funding will support Glasgow's economic recovery? Obviously, the funding to which Mr Kidd refers is important. We have to consider the ways in which that can have an effect on economic opportunities within the city of Glasgow. Applications are in the process of being assessed by officials. I can confirm that Glasgow has submitted an application and decisions that will be made in due course and notified. However, the objective of the partnership is to support the internationalisation of the regional economy and to ensure that the long-term foundations of the city and regional economy are secure. That will lie at the heart of the decision-making around the fund. That concludes portfolio questions on Covid-19 recovery in parliamentary business. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next portfolio questions in the event that front-bench teams wish to change position. There is zero energy in transport. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question or enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question. I call question number one, Annie Wells, who is joining us remotely. Can I ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it is scheduled to meet UK Government ministers to discuss the implementation of the energy company obligation for scheme in Scotland? The energy company obligation is a UK Government scheme, although it is scheduled to begin in April this year. The design of the Eco4 scheme has not been confirmed by the UK Government. Since June last year, we have repeatedly attempted to engage with UK ministers on the future of the warm home discount and Eco, but our approaches have not been answered. I would welcome a meeting with UK Government ministers to discuss how Eco can better tackle fuel poverty and deliver a just transition in Scotland. I have been in touch with energy businesses across Glasgow who are extremely concerned about the lack of communication from the SNP green government regarding a transition period between the Eco3 and Eco4 schemes. They have revealed to me that, if there is no such confirmation of a transition period with EOC due to expire in just eight days' time, they fear many jobs across Glasgow could be relocated to England and Wales. Can the minister urgently clarify that an Eco3 interim period will apply in Scotland to help to save those jobs? I have to say that I very much appreciate the frustration that many people have with the lack of clarity, and that clarity is needed. However, it is the UK Government that has refused still to confirm what the design of the Eco4 scheme will be. Even though it is due to come into force in April, we do not anticipate seeing the regulations laid to define it until April. Some of the changes that were signalled in the UK Government's response to the public consultation appear to be based on the English definition of fuel poverty, which may limit the number of eligible Scottish properties. Just for clarity, we have known for a long time that that change was coming. In February 2021, the Scottish Government proposed combining the warm home discount and Eco as a single more flexible fuel poverty scheme in Scotland. Scottish ministers wrote to their UK counterparts in June and in October, and in December, they asked whether that approach would be acceptable to the UK Government, and we have still not had an answer from the UK Government one way or the other. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking in relation to green scales to remove barriers that are facing offshore oil and gas workers in transitioning to green jobs in the offshore energy sector. I am pleased that OPTO, with Scottish Government support, through the Energy Skills Alliance, is making excellent progress towards the enabling of a skills passport. In the coming months, ESA will publish its skills transition plan, which will set out work to date and next steps. There has been great progress in what is a complicated and important piece of work that will support the offshore workforce in its transition journey. I thank the minister for her response. I look forward to meeting with her tomorrow alongside trade unions and climate campaigners to discuss the need for an offshore training passport, but one of the other barriers facing offshore oil and gas workers in transitioning to green jobs is the poor employment practices in the offshore wind supply chain. The Scottish Government often talks of its commitment to fair work, so will it support sectoral collective bargaining in the offshore wind industry? I thank the member very much for that question, and I look forward to seeing her tomorrow to discuss progress on the offshore skills passport. The Scottish Government absolutely supports workers, and you will see in the national strategy for economic transformation that we support collective bargaining and workers having more of a say in how their jobs are executed. In a written answer to me, Minister Richard Lochhead admitted that this Government having only delivered approximately one in 20 of the offshore wind jobs that it forecast proposes to widen the definition of a green job. He proposes to use a different definition from the one that the UNS, and therefore the rest of the UK, is using. Does the minister accept that widening the definition would give a distorted picture on how this Government is really performing on the creation of green jobs, and will make it impossible to meaningfully compare with the rest of the UK? Minister, I thank the member very much for that question. The discussion of what is a green job is an absolute live one. It is fair to say that, in the future, all jobs will be green jobs. Tackling the climate crisis isn't something that we can put in a box. Everybody needs to play their part, all sectors need to play their part. Of course, it's useful to have a definition when we're looking at planning training and when we're looking at planning investment, but I think that it's correct. Minister, please resume your seat a second. Again, I have to please call for some courtesy from the Conservative benches. I think that it's absolutely appropriate that Scotland develops a definition of green jobs that is appropriate for our workforce and our industry here. Question 3, not lodged. Question 4, withdrawn. Question 5, Michelle Thompson. To ask the Scottish Government what ministerial discussions have taken place regarding whether its net zero ambitions could be supported through the introduction of new fiscal measures. Ministers regularly consider new policy proposals and fiscal regulatory measures to accelerate our transition to net zero. While Scottish ministers endeavour to take all actions required to reach net zero, many levers do sit within reserved conferences. For example, areas such as transmission charging sit with the UK Government and presently act as a disincentive through renewable energy investment in Scotland. Therefore, it's essential that the UK Government works with the Scottish Government to ensure that fiscal measures support our net zero ambitions. Michelle Thompson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. The ambitious net zero target set by the Scottish Government will not only require to be funded but the frameworks developed to. This cannot be done in isolation without consideration by those with the full fiscal levers of what measures could be utilised. Given the scale of the challenge and the fact that the majority of green tax powers are reserved to the UK Government, does the cabinet secretary share my concern at the recent Westminster Public Accounts Committee report that noted that the UK Government has no clear plan for how the transition to net zero will be funded? Given that a number of the crucial levers, including but not limited to green tax powers, are reserved to the UK Government, I share the member's concern. In particular, the issues that were highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee about the UK Government's lack of any clear plan on how the transition to net zero will be funded. Prior to the publication of the UK Government's net zero strategy, we made consistent calls for action to be taken in a number of crucial areas that are within reserved competencies. While the strategy contained a number of positive steps to be taken to help support achieving net zero, it was a concern that there was no clear indication as to how those actions would be taken forward at a fiscal level. That is why it is absolutely essential that the UK Government works with the Scottish Government in ensuring that the fiscal measures that are within the hold of the UK Government, meet Scotland's ambitious climate change targets. That is why, for example, I have highlighted issues such as transmission charging that presently act as a disincentive. It is therefore essential that the fiscal measures are consistent with achieving net zero by 2045. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives from the energy regulator off-gem and what was discussed. Last met with off-gem gas and electricity market authority board on 9 February 2022. That was a general catch-up with the board, but the main topics discussed, including the price cap announcement, the outcome of Crown Estate Scotland's Scotland leasing round and transmission charges. Scottish Government officials continued to meet and engage with off-gem on a regular basis. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. With rising energy costs and the increase in the price cap, the Tory cost of living crisis is about to escalate. Can the cabinet secretary set out the average cost per household of UK Government-imposed VAT and energy policy costs? Does he agree with me that the Tories must cut VAT from household energy bills and immediately implement a fairer warm home discount scheme to support people? Off-gem has estimated that the VAT component of the average household fuel energy bill will be around £60 per year, and policy costs added are over £150 more. That is an issue that I have taken up with the UK Government previously on a number of occasions to ask them to look at a temporary cut to VAT alongside that. We have also asked them to take action on the warm homes discount scheme and to review the socio-environmental costs that are included on energy bills. Actions that we believe collectively could help to support families facing spiralling energy costs, which are added to the wider cost of living crisis that the Conservative Government is responsible for. That is why it is essential that we see proper concerted action by the UK Government to address the crisis. Sadly, that was lacking in the spring statement. However, the reality is that households will still face the very considerable energy costs alongside rising cost of living costs that the UK Government is responsible for taking action on. I have a number of supplementaries, and I intend to take each of them. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. For many rural households in my constituency who are off-grid and use oil as their primary source of heating, there are no price cap protections. Many people see increased prices from around £0.50 per litre to £0.40 with minimum delivery quotas and payment required on delivery. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Government must intervene to tackle the unregulated heating oil industry to prevent uncertainty and extreme fuel poverty for rural households? That is an area that is unregulated in the energy market. It is an issue that we have raised on a consistent basis with the UK Government, particularly impacts on those who live in rural areas in Scotland. I recognise the points that the member is making on behalf of constituents who have saw very significant increases in the cost of oil heating systems. That is why we believe that there is a need for proper regulation in the sector to protect households and to make sure that it addresses the ever-increasing costs that those who rely on oil heating are now facing. Again, that is an area of policy that we want to see the UK Government taking action on and to do so urgently. A constituent has recently argued that the estimated energy bill that was given during the latest wave of the pandemic was excessive. Has the Scottish Government had any discussion with OFGEM on the use of estimated bills where meter reading was not able to be taken? That is an area that is regulated by OFGEM. If the member has a particular concern about a constituent's circumstances, he can pursue that directly with OFGEM in order to ask them to consider the complaint that they may have. Estimated bills will have a role to play for some households, but there is a process that can be used for individuals to ask for that to be revised on the basis of submitting a reading on those matters. If the member's constituent continues to experience problems, there is advice that can be provided on pursuing those issues with their energy supplier to ensure that their energy bill is reflective of the use of energy given that their previous bills have been based upon estimates. My question relates to the targeted charging review of transmission demand residual. OFGEM analysis of domestic consumers highlights that the no-floor approach could result in consumers in north Scotland receiving credits driven by consumption during the evening peak. A floor approach shows that that would result in overall decrease in the new-os charges for typical domestic consumers apart from those in Scotland. For north Scotland in particular, they note that charges will increase compared with the current charges given the assistance for area with high electricity distribution cost policy. The north-east pays more again. Does the cabinet secretary agree with floaring the forward-looking charge at zero? The existing system is not fit for purpose, which is why the whole system needs to be changed. We have a system that is geared just now, where the two new-os charging regime is based on providing energy as close to the consumer as possible. The reality is that moving to a net zero age is that the vast majority of it will be much more distant from centres of population. That is why it is important that any regime that we have in place is one that is reflective of the need to move to net zero. Alongside that, any price cap mechanisms that are being introduced off the back of that and alongside those measures need to be reflective of the household situation, including in rural areas. As yet, OFGEM has failed to take forward an approach that is reflective of the needs here in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what its responses to the climate change committee's latest report is Scotland climate ready, which states that progress in delivering climate change adaptation measures in Scotland has stalled. Preparing for the impacts of climate change, which are locked in, forms a key part of a just transition, and we are making real progress on this. That includes an extra £150 million for flood risk management and £12 million for coastal change adaptation over this Parliament. We are pleased that the committee in climate change supports our vision for a climate resilient Scotland, however we accept that more needs to be done. This is a global challenge, and we are not alone in needing to accelerate progress. We are now considering the committee's recommendations, and we will respond to the recommendations in due course. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but perhaps I can help the cabinet secretary to give the real answer to Michelle Thompson's questions around the concerns reaching Scotland's net zero targets. The climate change committee's report is scathing in its criticism of the Scottish Government. It says that actions are not being implemented with sufficient scale and urgency, and that there is no credible planning to adapt farmland habitats and species, and that there is a gap in planning for maintenance of a weather resilient energy system in sufficient inclusion of adaptation and plans for many key infrastructure sectors. Repeated criticisms have a critical lack of relevant data to access progress, making it difficult to properly assess progress or evolving risks. When will the Scottish Government realise that the success of its plans does not come from good headlines but from actually doing the hard work? The member's interpretation of the report is that it is scathing on the Scottish Government. Given the comments that I have made about the UK Government and the fact that the Scottish Government is ahead of it in climate adaptation, I wonder what it means for the UK Government and their failure in this area of policy. However, I am sure that, as you would often expect from the Opposition, it will be selective on aspects of the report that it chooses to select. For example, we can pick up on the issues that it highlights in terms of transport, the progress that we are making on rail and climate change and the way in which we are taking forward policies to provide greater resilience. The progress that has been made in planning for adaptation in commercial forestry is highlighted in the report, and in a number of other areas where it highlights that Scotland is demonstrating strong clear leadership in those areas. Clearly, we need to do more. That is certainly what we intend to do, and we will respond to the recommendations in the report that rightly raises the challenge that climate adaptation has to be measured against the same actions that we take on tackling climate change overall, and that it needs to make sure that it is treated in an equal fashion. That is why the increasing funding that we are putting into a range of areas is to help to support the embedding of our actions to tackle climate adaptation, and we will look to do more of that as we move forward. I do not think that most people would agree with the minister that the measure of success has been marginally better than the Conservatives, but nevertheless, a vision counts for not very much when the action is not delivered. In the report, it says very clearly that the majority of Scotland's shoreline is not covered by shoreline management plans. I am deeply concerned about many properties and land in my constituency. What is the minister doing to make sure that those plans get delivered and get delivered soon? I do concede that measuring yourself against the Conservative party and Government of Westminster is not a high bar to set yourself. However, I can assure the member that we are certainly doing more than that low bar that they operate at on a consistent basis. In relation to the point that the member makes, he may be aware that we are already taking forward the second phase of the dynamic coast project, which was launched just in August of last year, which I launched in Montrose, a key part of which is the modelling work that has been undertaken to look at coastal erosion and the potential risks that that could have in individual parts of the country, no doubt in areas of his constituency. That particular piece of work is to understand the areas of risk and the potential mitigations that then need to be put in place in order to manage that. That is a piece of work that is on-going just now. He will appreciate the complexity in some of the challenges with it, but the dynamic at coast projects is specifically to try to address the type of concern that the member has raised, and we are providing funding to try to support local authorities in taking forward some of the mitigation measures that are necessary in order to address the issue of coastal erosion. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, while clearly there is much more to do, the Scottish Government's efforts and ambitions on tackling the climate crisis have been widely recognised, including from Chris Stark, the CEO of the Climate Change Committee, who told GMS recently that the Scottish Government has been noticeably better than other parts of the UK, putting a vision around what it wants to do to make Scotland more climate resilient? We do not see that, for example, from DEFRA in the UK. I recognise that we are making progress on this. The report recognises that we are making progress on it, but it also calls for us to do more in order to show greater urgency in moving forward in tackling the issue of climate adaptation. Yes, we are doing more than other parts of the UK. We are further ahead than other parts of the UK, although I recognise that Westminster the bar is a low measure. Having said that, what we need to do is also recognise that there are further measures that we need to take forward. That is why, as I mentioned for example, the £150 million for flood risk management and the £12 million for coastal adaptation that I made reference to, the investment that we are putting into areas such as peatland restoration, all of those are measures that help to support our climate adaptation work, alongside investment of £60 million in climate adaptation on our trunk road network. However, we need to look at what more we can do to adapt to the changing climate that we face. We can be assured that this Government will be determined to do that and to continue to ensure that the leadership is necessary, not just here in Scotland and the UK but internationally in tackling climate adaptation. That concludes portfolio questions on net zero energy and transport, and there will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.