 Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions and the first portfolio questions are COVID-19 recovery and parliamentary business. If any member wishes to ask a supplementary question they should press the request to speak button or enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question, and, as always, I would make a plea for short and succinct questions and answers to match. 1, F realmente Carson. Ia g concludes the Scottish Government as part of the delivery of a cross- Government Covid recovery strategy what effort it is making to ensure the resilience of Scotland's response to any future pandemic. Não sposób recondisiwaulen diwrnodaeth sets out key ambitions and actions to be developed and delivered now and over the next five years the recovery plan is backed with over a billion pounds of targeted investment which will drive the recovery of our National health service pre-pandemic level, but beyond. In addition, the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland Bill will help to build resilience against future public health threats, including any future pandemics. The provisions within part 1 of the bill will, if passed, allow Scottish ministers to respond swiftly, flexibly and proportionately to any infection or contamination that presents or could present significant harm to human health. Finlay Carson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. As the pandemic thankfully begins to ease, I know that the Scottish Government has been in consultation with various PPE suppliers over the need to stockpile for future pandemics, but voices are being concerned and has been voiced, however, over the huge cost involved in procurement, ultimately being left potential without update and useless equipment just as happened the last time. Can I ask that a great consideration should be given to encourage domestic manufacturers, such as Alpha Solway, based in the Frees, who make 150,000 respirators a week? That production could increase to more than £2 million a week, enough to meet the entire needs of the NHS because of its investment in using its own raw materials. Would the cabinet minister look into that as a more cost-effective way forward in the long term? Times First Minister. Recalculation says that we are correct. Alpha Solway provided supplies through the PPE network to the Scottish effort, and I am grateful to the employees and the leadership of Alpha Solway for all that they contributed. Obviously, the development of the domestic supply chain in all of these circumstances is very important. It was a key priority of my ministerial colleague Ivan McKee, who did a tremendous amount of work in dialogue with the business community, to enable us to manufacture more and more of the required PPE within Scotland rather than to rely on imports. Fundamentally, I agree with Mr Carson about the importance of that point. I think that there is an issue that I do need to raise, which is about the question of stockpiling. If we stockpile for the possibility of a pandemic, if no pandemic comes, then inevitably there may well be stock that cannot be utilised within particular periods. But efforts are made to recondition that to make sure that we maximise the effectiveness and the efficiency of those arrangements. I assure Mr Carson that those arrangements are very much at the heart of the pandemic learning that we have undertaken. We want to encourage that domestic supply chain to its maximum level possible. I agree entirely with Finlay Carson that we need to take steps now to ensure that the resilience of Scotland responds to any future pandemic. Does the First Minister agree that the entire purpose of the Covid recovery bill, which the Conservatives partly are so vehemently and opportunistically opposing, is entirely what it is set out to do? As I said in my response to Mr Carson, the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland bill will help to build resilience against future public health rights. It needs to be taken seriously by Parliament and to be engaged with seriously. Without those legislative protections in place, the speed of response and the ability for us to respond to the changing dynamics of a pandemic would be limited. I encourage members of Parliament to engage constructively with the Government on this bill and produce a statute book that simply brings us into line with powers that have existed in England and Wales for over a decade in relation to pandemic management. Culture has been one of the sectors that hit hardest by the pandemic. What lesson has the Scottish Government learned from the experience of Covid to help to shield the culture sector from the impact of future pandemics? Obviously, the Government has taken action over a range of different sectors and the culture sector is one. We have provided the maximum amount of support possible to the sector to enable it to navigate its way through the difficulties, but audiences could not be present and artistic performances and other events could not take place. To be able to deploy that important cultural contribution in the aftermath of the pandemic when people would perhaps need that even more to recover mentally and socially from the trauma of the pandemic. The Government's funding arrangements were designed to sustain the sector. Of course, there is on-going funding in the normal budget arrangements that are in place. I know that my colleague the culture minister, Neil Gray, is very actively engaged in dialogue with the culture sector to maximise its contribution to Scottish society. To ask the Scottish Government how long Covid has been factored into its Covid-19 strategic review. Our strategic framework update in February 2022 confirmed the on-going assessments of the Covid-19 threat. Will combine assessments of potential disease impact and the risk of infection. As well as current and expected infection fatality rates, the assessment of disease impact will consider factors such as long Covid. Accurate data is vitally important in understanding the prevalence of long Covid. Data from the ONS Covid-19 infection survey is currently the best source of evidence on estimated prevalence of long Covid in Scotland. Our chief scientist funded nine Scottish-led research projects with a total funding commitment of £2.5 million to improve understanding of the long-term effects of Covid-19 on physical and mental health and help with developing effective clinical interventions to support recovery and rehabilitation. Given the answer, can the cabinet secretary explain why the Scottish Government has yet to host a debate on the important issue on the long-term effects of long Covid? Why was the scheduled debate on this issue last week changed to a different topic? The Government is committed to having a debate on long Covid, and that will happen very shortly. The issues in relation to the ability of the Government to set out a complete picture of the response that involves funding announcements that members of Parliament might object to hearing during the course of a local authority election campaign. GP colleagues of mine up and down Scotland despair at the absence of a pathway for long Covid patients. No-one in the comfort of this chamber should pretend that there is. I face patients crying in despair over their long Covid symptoms. My colleagues face patients crying in despair over their long Covid symptoms, but the Scottish Government still does not know how to deal with this, despite the tried and tested models running in Hertfordshire. By question, given over 100,000 Scots now suffer with long Covid and cannot wait for the research that is being told by the cabinet secretary that is being performed, when will the Scottish Government realise the devastation reeking across Scotland and finally start caring for people with long Covid by getting long Covid clinics up and running? What is happening now does not work. I do not agree with the picture that was set out by Dr Gulhane. I do not think that it reflects the position that is the intended approach of the national health service in Scotland. It is very clear, and the health secretary has set this out to Parliament on countless occasions, that the pathway for patients who have long Covid must be assessed by individual clinicians because there is no way that Dr Gulhane can say to me that every long Covid case presents in exactly the same fashion that would be an absurd clinical proposition to put forward. Individual clinicians must make the assessments of individual patients and the national health service must meet those needs. There are research projects under way, which I would have thought as a clinician that Dr Gulhane might have been interested in hearing what the research projects might produce rather than rubishing those research projects. It is a really odd position for a clinician to take to rubbish evidence-gathering as part of the process so that we can gather the intelligence and the information to enable us to take the right decisions. That strikes me as evidence-led policymaking, and if Dr Gulhane, as a member of Parliament and as a clinician cannot see the benefits of evidence-led policymaking, then I think that he has some serious questions to answer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the total costs of the Covid-19 vaccine certification scheme. The Covid certification scheme was an important part of our domestic response to Covid-19, and the app continues to be a vital part of supporting people to travel internationally as the scheme also provides Covid-19 status. I can confirm that the Scottish Government has directly allocated over £7 million to date. I have asked my officials to place a table of this breakdown in Spice. £7 million was wasted by John Swinney on a domestic Covid passport scheme, which was quietly switched off by the SNP Government last week. The Deputy First Minister was warned that domestic certification would not work and that breached data protection laws would damage business and cost jobs. Will the Deputy First Minister now say sorry to the businesses that are damaged and for the jobs that are lost? Will he apologise to the Scottish people for wasting £30,000 a day of their money on his botched scheme? What a lot of absolute baloney. By Mr Hoy's standards, a colossal amount of baloney. Mr Hoy must surely understand the basics of this point that the Covid status app was necessary, regardless of the domestic application, to enable people to be able to travel from Scotland to other countries. Surely the Conservatives must understand that point. The costs that have been incurred are necessary to enable us to produce an app that would allow Scottish people to visit other countries. If the Conservatives are saying to us that they did not want people in Scotland to have an international app that would allow them to travel internationally, that is an interesting message. I would be fascinated to know if any Conservative members have used their app on international travel in the course of the past few weeks and months. That would be a fascinating question to have answered. As for the Government quietly announcing anything about the domestic app, the Government published its stance on the domestic app openly and transparently, just like the Government does on every occasion about our policy agenda. Subumentary Willie Coffey. Given that a number of places still require proof of vaccination before allowing individuals to enter the country, could the Deputy First Minister confirm for us that the app will continue to operate to ensure that people in Scotland may continue to travel internationally without issue? As I have delicately explained to Mr Hoy in my answer, the app was originally designed for use for international travel and we expect that the app will continue to be required for that purpose until at least June 2023 to enable people from Scotland, just to repeat the point in case the Conservatives did not understand it, to enable people in Scotland to be able to travel from Scotland to other countries and to be able to access venues in the way that countless other countries require individuals to demonstrate their Covid vaccination status to enable them to gain entrance. Question 5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impact on its Covid recovery strategy, of its decision to end the universal provision of lateral flow tests. Our decision to transition from regular lateral flow testing for the general public is based on the latest available evidence and advice from public health officials and clinicians. Throughout the pandemic, the Scottish Government has made decisions based on expert advice and we will continue to do so as we support recovery. Some groups will remain eligible for free lateral flow testing. This will include unpaid carers and personal assistants, people who are visiting a hospital or care home and where it is advised as part of a clinical care plan. 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. I thank the minister for that response. One of the stated aims of the Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy is to improve access to services where provision was restricted by the pandemic. Though health and social care workers will continue to be able to access free lateral flow tests, other front-line workers from teachers to hospitality staff will no longer have access to them for routine workplace testing. This could lead to access to services such as schools and restaurants being disrupted, especially as Scotland's Covid infection rates remain high. Will the Scottish Government consider expanding access to free lateral flow tests to all front-line workers in order to ensure a fair and safe Covid recovery? I understand the significance of the point that Mercedes-Valba raises, and particularly the point about access to services for people who had their access disrupted during the course of the pandemic. I am thinking particularly of individuals, for example accessing day centres and other provision of that type, which I suspect lies at the heart of the question. What we have tried to do in recognising the fact that we are emerging from what I might describe as the intensity of the pandemic into a position where we are essentially managing the pandemic within the community and its prevalence is to take a proportionate approach about the availability of lateral flow testing so that, where there is perhaps the risk of greater intensity of infection in healthcare settings, we enable that arrangement still to be applied. That will, of course, be an approach that we continue to review as we see infection levels in our society. I think that what is encouraging about the period just now is that, although we have had a very intense period of Covid infection in our community, that is showing signs of a consistent decline, which is very welcome for the forthcoming period. While it is welcome that testing remains free of charge to those who have health conditions, what consideration is the Scottish Government giving to expanding the availability of free lateral flow tests to those who are close contacts to someone in the high-risk category, such as family members? The principle measure that we can put in place to ensure population-wide resilience is the vaccination programme. Of course, we have had phenomenal participation in the vaccination programme. With the availability now of new Covid treatments, the reliance on the testing approach is not as significant as it was in the past. We are, as I have indicated, using lateral flow tests in a targeted way to support clinical care and to protect in high-risk settings. From the first of May, anyone eligible for Covid treatments, unpaid carers and anyone visiting a hospital or care home can still order lateral flow tests online or by phoning 119. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impact on its Covid-19 recovery strategy of the reported costs of living crisis. The Scottish Government is acutely aware of the impact that increases in the cost of energy, food transport and other essentials that it has on people across Scotland. We are taking immediate action to support those most impacted by the cost of living crisis. Our £290 million cost of living support package is supporting 1.85 million Scottish households. We are investing up to £113 million of additional investment through our tackling child poverty delivery plan, and we have increased the value of a further eight Scottish social security benefits. The key levers to address the cost of living crisis are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The UK Government has repeatedly failed to take the steps that are necessary to address the crisis. I take this opportunity to urge them to either take the steps required to protect people or devolve the powers that allow this Government to take further action. Jackie Dunbar. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer. For many, this month's paycheck will be the first since the national insurance hike. This comes as energy bills skyrocket and new research has revealed that folk face yet another hit with the average food bill will potentially increase by a staggering £271 this year. Can the Deputy First Minister outline what steps the Scottish Government has taken to support households facing acute challenges from the pandemic and now a cost of living crisis of the Tory Government's own making? Does the Deputy First Minister share my view that Scotland's recovery would be best served if this Government had the full powers over welfare, energy and the economy that would come with independence? Before I call on the Deputy First Minister to respond, I urge that we stick to the question in the Deputy First Minister's response, which was to do with the Covid recovery strategy among other things. I do agree with the point put forward by Jackie Dunbar. I would explain that the Government is taking a range of actions within the devolved powers that we have at our disposal and our limited resources to help people facing the current cost of living crisis. Through our cost of living support measures, spend on unique Scottish Social Security payments that are not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, bridging payments and mitigating the bedroom tax, we are set to invest almost £770 million to tackle the cost of living crisis this year. That is an indication of a Government engaged in addressing the cost of living crisis. I only wish that the United Kingdom Government would either engage in tackling the crisis or devolve the powers to enable us to do exactly that. Yesterday we heard in the debate on MS Week that it costs between £600,000 and £1,000 more to live with MS. Can the cabinet secretary set out what specifically the Government is doing to support disabled people to meet the extra fuel costs during the cost of living crisis? There is a direct link to the Covid recovery strategy. At the heart of the Covid recovery strategy is the determination of the Government to tackle the inequalities that existed pre-pandemic, which I accept affect many individuals with disabilities, and which were exacerbated by the pandemic, hence my answer earlier to Mercedes Villalba as well. The Government in the Covid recovery strategy focused on tackling inequalities. The decisions that the Government has taken to up-rate benefits by 6 per cent is a substantive contribution to assisting individuals, many with disabilities who will access these benefits to be able to manage the significant challenges that households face. I do not, in any way, understate the significance of those challenges, which I recognise to be acute. I only wish that the United Kingdom Government was contributing more to the process. 7. Pauline McNeill To ask the Scottish Government how its policies across Government will support young people living in Glasgow to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. We know that young people across Scotland have had an extremely challenging time during the pandemic, and the Scottish Government is committed to supporting all of our young people as we recover. Improving the wellbeing of children and young people is one of the central outcomes in our Covid recovery strategy. Together with partners in local government, business and the third sector, we are delivering policies that will help young people, including those living in the city of Glasgow. For example, as part of the young person's guarantee, developing the young workforce, Glasgow is working to support young people with additional barriers into positive destinations. Glasgow's local employability partnership is also prioritising supporting those furthest in the labour market to achieve a positive destination. Pauline McNeill As the Deputy First Minister highlighted, young people between the ages of 18 and 24 have been at the sharp end of the pandemic, but are most likely to have experienced extended worklessness during it, especially those who shielded and gave up their jobs. Youth unemployment in Glasgow sits at 9 per cent, so that is almost three times the national average. Young people who return to work are most likely the average person to be an insecure work and not be in a union. Does the cabinet secretary agree that more needs to be done to protect those young people in work, given some scandalous stories of poor treatment, not just in Glasgow but across the country? How is the Scottish Government ensuring that young people in Glasgow and across the country can access decent and secure jobs, but with the ability to develop good-quality careers? The Deputy First Minister Fundamentally, I agree with the proposition put forward by Pauline McNeill, and I would contend that the Government's agenda is designed to support that. The young person's guarantee gives the assurance of a good pathway for every young person, no matter how far from the labour market. Indeed, in the Covid recovery work that the Government is doing, we are placing special emphasis on making sure that we are able to reach those with the greatest challenges to get into the labour market. The young person's guarantee provides that flexibility for some young people accessing further education or accessing some individually focused support may be what is required to enable them to overcome obstacles and to enter the labour market. The assurance that I would give Pauline McNeill is that we are, and I discussed this point with the Glasgow economic leadership group that I met just last Wednesday, who are very focused on making sure that the tremendous resource base in Glasgow of the talented young people, which have properly nurtured, supported and assisted, can contribute significantly to the city's economic recovery. The Government is committed to working with our partners in Glasgow to enable that to be the case. The Scottish child payment will clearly have a positive impact in supporting low-income families to recover from the pandemic. Will the Deputy First Minister detail how many children in Glasgow are expected to benefit and will the Scottish Government monitor that impact by surveying directly with those in receipt of the Scottish child payment to find out what they think? We would expect around 50,000 children in Glasgow to benefit from the Scottish child payment in each of the next five years. We are currently undertaking an interim evaluation of the Scottish child payment. Of course, Mr Doris will be aware of the fact that the Government has announced enhanced rates for the Scottish child payment in recent weeks as part of the child poverty delivery plan. Once the payment is fully rolled out to those responsible for children under 16, we will carry out a full evaluation of the policy development, and both of those evaluations will involve engagement with those in receipt of the Scottish child payment to ensure that we capture the experience and the benefit for those individuals. Young people in Glasgow and across Scotland will be sitting in exams over the coming weeks, and a number of those young people may unfortunately miss their exams due to Covid. That is likely to lead to a large increase in the number of appeals going to the SQA over the summer. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the SQA is properly resourced to be able to deal with that likely increase in the number of appeals? If that does result in an increased number of appeals, I am confident that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will have the resource planning in place to enable that to be properly addressed. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on its Covid recovery strategy of its future plans for contact tracing. The test and protect transition plan, published on 15 March, outlines the phased way in which test and protect will transition and support the effective management of Covid, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen resilience and recovery as we rebuild for a fairer future. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. I have previously raised in the chamber with both the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care the importance of ensuring that test and protect staff have their contracts honoured and are suitably redeployed so as not to lose their expertise and their knowledge from this period of the pandemic. As part of the recovery plan, I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary would agree with me that in learning from Covid-19, should we ensure that contact tracing systems are evaluated and refined to incorporate lessons learned and should they be maintained within NHS so that they can be rapidly activated in future in case of further outbreaks, future epidemic illness or public health emergencies? The first thing I want to say is to express my very warm thanks to the test and protect workforce, who I think have done an absolutely phenomenal job during the course of the pandemic in difficult circumstances. In fact, when many of us were working from home, many of these individuals were working in very challenging conditions, so I record my warm thanks to those individuals. I agree with Mr O'Kane that it is important that we learn from the experience of the pandemic. It is part of building up the resilience as a population for the handling of any future pandemics. That is why the legislation that I am bringing forward to the Parliament is so critical in that respect to make sure that we have that pandemic awareness in place and the ability to handle those issues. I think that certainly there are arrangements that need to be put in place to make sure that learning can be built into the workings and the approaches of the national health service to enable us to be properly resilient for any future pandemics. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. That concludes portfolio questions on Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. I will allow a very short pause before we move on to the next portfolio questions to allow front-bench teams to change places should they wish. The next portfolio is net zero energy and transport. I remind members that Questions 1 and 7 are grouped together and that I will take any supplementaries on these questions once both of them have been answered. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question or enter R in the chat function during the relevant question. Again, I appeal for succinct questions and answers to match. Question 1, Bob Doris. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been made of the impact of rising energy costs and fuel poverty in the most deprived communities. We are doing all that we can within our devolved powers to support households, including through our £10 million fuel insecurity fund and expanding support to improve home energy efficiency. But only the UK Government has the powers over energy pricing and obligations necessary to fully address the cost pressures on households. Our analysis suggests that the increase in the energy price cap could see an additional 211,000 households moving into fuel poverty, representing a 43 per cent increase from 2019. For the 15 per cent most deprived communities in Scotland, the increase is estimated to be even greater, rising to some 54 per cent. Bob Doris. I have been contacted by community heat customers in Winford, the state-facing eye-watering price increases for heat and hot water with tariffs more than doubling. Whilst I have a constructive meeting with SSC, the relationship between rising wholesale gas prices and additional costs for running community heating are absolutely unclear. I have made specific suggestions to lower costs, including urging SSC to rethink the tariff increases. Will the cabinet secretary join me to urge SSC to do just that, as well as other community heat providers to show price constraints, given one of the underlying purposes for many heat networks, including in the Winford and my constituency, to tackle fuel poverty in the first place? Cabinet Secretary. I am aware of the issue that the member has raised. I can advise him that my officials have already met the advice bureau representatives on this very issue. I have also been in contact with SSC to raise the concerns about affordability and the debt among the community heat customers in Winford. I assure the member that we will continue to press SSC to try to help to resolve some of the issues, but he will recognise that there are complexities to this matter, given the nature of the energy market and the fact that energy prices are largely being driven by, even electricity prices are largely driven by, the wholesale gas prices are at an international level. I certainly wish to encourage the member and any of his constituents who are experiencing difficulty is that they should in interim contact Home Energy Scotland and they can provide them with advice and support going forward in order to try to help to support them in reducing their energy costs overall. Question 7, Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to help people experiencing fuel poverty as a result of increased energy bills. We recognise the immense financial strain that households are experiencing as energy prices rise. Since the powers over energy market are reserved, we are pressing for more action from UK Government to help hard-pressed consumers. Meanwhile, we are doing everything we can within our powers to help. Through our £290 million cost of living support package, we are giving £1.85 million to Scottish households, £150 of extra support in April. We are also allocating a further £10 million to continue our fuel insecurity fund, which has been helping households at risk of severely rationing their energy use or self-disconnecting entirely since 2020. Fulton MacGregor. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Increased energy bills means that many people in my constituency of Cochbridge and Creson and indeed across the country as a whole are having to choose between heating and eating. Given that energy powers are largely reserved, as the cabinet secretary has said already, does he agree that the crisis demands immediate action from the UK Government and that cutting that on energy bills would be a simple and effective way to support people during this very difficult time? We have set out a range of measures that we believe the UK Government should take in order to help to avert the crisis that many households are facing whether they can afford to heat or eat, given the significant increase in energy prices that are being experienced and the prospect of those energy prices increasing yet again in the autumn when the price cap is reviewed. One of those measures in the short term that the UK Government could take forward is to cut that on energy bills in order to try to help to reduce some of the pressure on household budgets. We urged them to do so in January and we urged them again last month in order to look at taking action on this particular issue. It is important that the UK Government recognise the crisis that many households are facing with the increasing costs that they face, not just in energy bills but across the cost of living in general and that they respond to that in a way that is much more effective than what has been a severe lack of response to date. A supplemention, Mr Duceffialba. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Energy is not a luxury. People have to be able to heat their homes. That is why it is so important that we do everything that we can within our powers and resources to help people to do that. Those were the First Minister's words in this chamber last month. Labour-run North Ayrshire Council is tackling rising energy costs by pioneering publicly-owned energy production but we need to see this kind of ambition on a national scale. Will the Scottish Government look again at a model of publicly-owned energy for the whole of Scotland? The member makes an important point about the basic right to be able to heat your home and the fact that fuel poverty is one of the highest levels for the whole of the UK, largely because of the rural environment that we have. In relation to being able to operate a national public energy company that could do with production and also the retail element of it, the relative, the member, recognises that you require to be, effectively, an independent country in order to do so. The reason that you require that is because you need the powers to be able to borrow in the market in order to invest in the market. Secondly, you also have to have control over the energy market in order to do so. That is why countries in Scandinavia have been very successful and effective in doing so. That is why we believe that the best way in which we can control our energy use here in Scotland and our energy market in the future is by Scotland having full control over these issues and making these decisions right here in Scotland. How will the Scottish Government ensure sufficient funds are available to those who need insulation or replacement heating systems for their homes, especially those on restricted incomes or in rural and island areas with high levels of fuel poverty? In three areas, we are increasing our level of support, given the experience that households are having at the present time with energy prices. One is expanding Home Energy Scotland's advice service, providing free and partial advice to households. They are seeing a 20 per cent increase in the support that they can provide. We are also widening the eligibility criteria for the Scottish Government's warmer homes at Scotland fuel poverty programme, which includes expanding that programme to more households with those that are occupied by those between the ages of 60 and 75 years of age. We are also increasing level of funding for individual fuel poor households through the area-based energy schemes as well. Alongside that, we are expanding our wider energy programme around insulation programmes for properties. We are taking forward measures that we can in order to help to reduce people's costs, because the cheapest energy you get is the energy that you do not use. That is why we need to make sure that energy efficiency is a key part of our strand of work to help to not just reduce them in the short term, but in the medium to longer term as well, because it also helps to tackle our climate change challenge. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to make homes easier to keep warm in light of the need to tackle the reported cost of living crisis. Minister Patrick Harvie. The Scottish Government has allocated over £1 billion since 2009 to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. More than 150,000 fuel poor households have benefited from our investment. This year alone, we have committed a further £336 million to help to make homes warmer and less expensive to heat as part of our £1.8 billion commitment over the course of this Parliament, which is the most ambitious programme within the UK. Last October, we published our heat in building strategy, which sets out our commitment to addressing the dual challenges of reducing carbon emissions and tackling fuel poverty. I thank the minister for that answer. Does he agree that there is a stark contrast between the UK Government's approach to energy policy, which places all of its bets on expanding nuclear power and squeezing out even more oil and gas, while neglecting the much quicker and more significant impact that investing in energy efficiency can bring with that of the Scottish Government, which is seeking to do everything that it can to ease energy costs for hard-pressed households? Minister. I agree completely that there is a stark contrast between those two agendas. It's not just the different views that will be in the chamber about whether expanding the fossil fuel industry in the midst of a climate emergency is viable, but the extraordinary decision of the UK Government to publish not only a heat in buildings strategy but a UK energy security strategy that does not put emphasis on energy efficiency and demand reduction. The Scottish Government is committed to placing a high priority on that. The Scottish ministers wrote to the Secretary of State on 18 March, setting out wider views on energy policy, including the need to accelerate decarbonisation of electricity, which in part supports decarbonisation of heat and transport, reforming the network charging system, creating new business models and balancing policy costs to protect consumers. As the cabinet secretary said in response to question 1, we have also announced since March wider eligibility criteria for the energy efficiency upgrades and warmer home Scotland activity, as well as measures to ensure that the maximum number of people can benefit from our area-based schemes, including the focus on fabric first insulation upgrades. The cost of heating homes using domestic heating oil has risen dramatically in recent months even more so than gas and electricity. Given that the prominence of domestic heating oil is within rural communities, I wonder if the minister agrees with me that both in terms of running costs and carbon footprint homes that use domestic heating oil should be a priority for support to install low-carbon heating systems. If so, how will the Scottish Government enable that to happen? I thank the member for the supplementary. Yes, that is a high priority and I regularly see correspondence from members who are supporting constituents to access the wide range of support through not only advice but also grant and loan schemes that the Scottish Government provides to enable people to access not only energy efficiency measures in homes but also the switch to zero-emission heating. I hope that members across the chamber will support their constituents to access that support. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress regarding the transport projects funded from the £254 million announced in 2016 as part of the Aberdeen City region deal. I would like to remind members of my register of interest that shows I am still a councillor at Aberdeen City Council. In 2016, the Scottish Government committed to invest up to £125 million in the Aberdeen City region deal matched by the UK Government. Alongside the deal, the Scottish Government announced an additional £254 million of investment in the north-east infrastructure. That includes £200 million to help improve journey times and increase capacity on key rail links between Aberdeen and the central belt and £24 million for a new grade separated junction at the Lawrence Kirk A90 A937 south junction. The option and selection process for the rail improvement project is near and completion and we expect to complete the project by the end of 2026. We also continue to push forward with the statutory process for the Lawrence Kirk junction improvement scheme and we are working with objectors to the scheme at the moment which of course include Aberdeen City Council to try and resolve concerns wherever possible. Delivery of the scheme itself though can only commence if it is approved under the relevant statutory procedures at which point a timetable for the construction phase can be set. I thank the minister for that answer. In 2008, the SNP first promised £200 million to reduce rail journey times between Aberdeen and the central belt but no improvement has been made. Another broken promise by this SNP Government just like when Alex Salmond said the first decision he would make if he got elected as First Minister in 2007 would be to duel the road between Ellen and Peterhead with a decision being made to fast-forward more than 5,000 days and the north-east is still waiting. So when will this Government stop the soundbites, stop breaking their promises to the people of the north-east and start delivering on the commitments that they made? I thank Mr Lumsden for his supplementary question. I have to remind the member that in terms of broken promises of course six city deals right across Scotland remain shortchanged by Westminster to the tune of £420 million or approximately £439 per household. That is not levelling up. It is very clear that the UK Government is not able to match Scottish Government funding. In Aberdeen, as I have outlined, we have invested £379 million of funding from the Scottish Government, only £125 million from the UK Government. That is from the same Conservative party who of course reneged on the carbon capture investment in the north-east which was promised to the people of the north-east in 2014. The north-east can certainly take no letters from Mr Lumsden in terms of broken promises. In terms of the Aberdeen to Central Belt, real capacity increases by 2026 as I outlined. An additional £200 million will have been invested in increasing real passenger and freight capacity between Aberdeen and the Central Belt, as committed previously by ministers. Does the minister share my disappointment that the UK Government has failed to match £379 million that the Scottish Government spends on city deals resulting in a shortfall of £254 million, which is the equivalent of £1,125 for every household in the north-east? Absolutely. I am really disappointed that the UK Government has refused to even match our £500 million just transition fund despite, of course, the £300 billion that has flown to the Treasury from the north-east in terms of our oil revenues since the 1970s. The future for the north-east is a bright one and I am proud that we are putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to ensuring a just transition to sustainable energy and greener jobs with our £14.3 million skill investment to provide immediate training and enterprise opportunities for up to 3,000 people across the region. Good green jobs do not just happen, which is why on Monday of this week the First Minister announced annual funding of £100,000 for the STUC to support officials who can liaise with workers and Government to continue to influence and shape our delivery of a just transition. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported concern of taxi drivers in Glasgow that they may be forced to leave the profession unless further support is offered when low-emission zones come into force. Minister Jenny Gilruth. To help taxi drivers prepare for low-emission zones, the Scottish Government offers grant funding towards the cost of retrofitting taxis to the latest Euro 6 standard through the low-emission standard. Those grants provide up to 80 per cent of the capital cost of retrofitting that is capped at £10,000 per vehicle. From 2019 to 2022, the LEZ support fund has made over £5.5 million available to households and businesses and a further £5 million is being offered by the Scottish Government via the LEZ support fund for 2020-23. I understand the challenge that the introduction of LEZ presents to taxi drivers and I have agreed to a meeting with taxi representatives and unions on that matter further when we are looking at the moment for a suitable date in the diary to do that. I thank the minister for that answer and the minister will be aware that many taxi drivers in Glasgow have felt that this is not yet enough. Taxis provide employment as well as an essential service for people in Glasgow to get around, especially disabled people who cannot access other forms of transport and therefore deeply concerned that there are limited number of second-hand taxis available to meet low-emission standards. What other specific action is the Scottish Government going to take to help drivers upgrade vehicles and ensure that they are not forced to spend extortionate or unreasonable amounts to purchase new ones or worse still forced out of the profession altogether? I thank Ms Pam Dolcon-Glatti for her supplementary question. As she outlined, I think that Glasgow taxis consists of a significantly higher number of older taxis than perhaps other cities in the country and that is in part due to Glasgow City Council licensing conditions that are more urgent than in other parts of the country. In terms of the support that we are able to provide, the low-emission zone retrofit fund that I have outlined gives up to 80 per cent of grant funding. The clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme also approved solutions offers as part of the LAZ retrofit fund gives further opportunities to allow for taxis to retrofit either with new engines or exhaust to use LPG fuel for example or with new exhaust to the existing diesel engine. There is also the low-emission zone support fund which is available to eligible micro-businesses, but as I have outlined in my response to Pam Dolcon-Glatti I am meeting with taxi drivers and unions soon to discuss this in more detail and we will look at what more support we might be able to support in this place. A supplementary co-caps to it. The minister will be as pleased as I am to see the low-emission zone scheme for Glasgow agreed. I know that the changes are going to be challenging for some but they are also going to deliver significant benefits. Can she say how the scheme will help for example to improve air quality in Glasgow city centre which is part of my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin and what other impacts we can hope to see as a result of the lowering emissions in the city centre? Minister. I thank co-caps for her question. She is right to say that this is not without challenge but Glasgow's low-emission zone has now been formally submitted to Transport Scotland for final approval and Glasgow remains on track to introduce its scheme by the end of May. Forecasting has shown that the LAZ will significantly reduce harmful transport emissions in parts of the city centre where air quality really needs to improve. LAZ will also contribute towards meeting emission reduction targets and are part of a range of actions that we are delivering to make our transport system cleaner, greener and healthier. To ask the Scottish Government how many jobs in the forestry sector have been created as a result of the Scottish National Investment Bank. Minister Mary McCallan. That information is not collected nor held by the Scottish Government. It is a matter for the Scottish National Investment Bank who make independent decisions about what investments to make and what information to collect, monitor and publish about those investments. However, in August 21 the bank committed £50 million to Gresham House forestry fund. That investment is under 12 months old and has therefore not been subject to the bank's annual reporting cycle. However, it was estimated that it could sustain over 200 existing jobs and create 500 more in Scotland. The SNP is to plough millions into forestry. However, there are issues over tree species and jobs as the bank itself admits 54 per cent of those will be non-native. We know that the major flaws are associated with large-scale sicker spruce plantations especially with carbon sequestration and washing. It is estimated that only 200 jobs will be created, not an impressive return for 50 million, which I believe has gone to Guernsey. Hardly a resounding success story for protecting rural communities. Can I ask the minister why such a deal was signed off through SNP when it has such a poor return for the environment, net zero progress, job creation and rural communities? Minister. As I thought might be obvious on a commercial basis alongside private money and it makes independent investment decisions that do not involve Scottish ministers. However, I am content that this particular investment rises to a number of the objectives of the Scottish Government including carbon sequestration through commercial planting, support for biodiversity and the creation of good green jobs in our rural communities. My understanding is that investment-like tree planting is generally a long-term endeavour because the bank has only recently been set up. Rachel Hamilton in the Scottish stories should be aware that Scotland has a very positive story to tell regarding forestry. It's worth nearly £1 billion per year in GVA and employs over 25,000 people. So, can I ask the minister how the forestry ministers carried out under auspices of the SNIB will help to complement the Scottish Government's tree planting goals and support our drive towards net zero? Minister. I could hardly hear the question. The commitment to the forestry fund has been set up, as I have said, focusing on wide-scale new planting with an estimated carbon sequestration potential of a staggering 1.2 million tonnes of carbon. As I have said, there are also commitments to biodiversity support and to sustainable forest management both of which are in line with Scottish Government objectives. This year, for our part, Scottish Forestry will also set out research on the different sequestration potential of the planting of different types of woodlands as well as the jobs that flow from those kinds of projects. Question 6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion it has had with Transport Scotland Network Rail, Winchborough Development Ltd and West Lothian Council relating to the provision of railway stations at Winchborough. Minister. Winchborough Development Ltd is responsible for the provision of a new station at Winchborough. Scottish ministers and the principal funder of Winchborough Development Ltd met twice in 2020 to discuss the proposed Winchborough railway station in 2021. There was one further meeting between the CEO of Transport Scotland and the principal funder of Winchborough Development Ltd. Meeting shortly with the local constituency MSP Fiona Hyslop to discuss this and I know that Ms Hyslop has campaigned tirelessly for some time now keen to ensure that we all work together including with the local authority and the developer to make progress on this musician. I thank the minister for the answer. The people of Winchborough were first promised a railway station 15 years ago but Transport Scotland would not let West Lothian Council make the session a condition of the development. We are now here as a result that there may be no station at all. Would the minister consider visiting Winchborough to see for herself the massive scale of development and the folly of adnation in declared climate emergency forcing hundreds of new residents into cars and private transport? Minister. I thank Faisal Shaggy for his supplementary question. It is important to remember that there are no cases of developer funded stations in Scotland at the moment. I think that there are at least two cases of developer funded stations in England but funding towards those new stations is needed through the real enhancement budget. It is worth noting that the proposal for a station at Winchborough came from the developer not from the Government along with their offer to fund the station itself. That came at a much lower estimate cost in terms of the costs associated at the time. With regard to the offer of meeting I have previously committed to meet with Ms Hidlop. Let me first meet with Ms Hidlop and then I will be more than happy to follow up on further detail with member. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The city reading deal for Edinburgh in Scotland was signed off by six local authorities, the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The deal included 5,000 new homes in Winchborough. Thanks to a West Lothian official we know that Transport Scotland blocked an attempt to make the construction of a new station at Winchborough a condition for planning permission for the houses. With a hammer blow of taxes hanging over the families that choose to live in Winchborough but work in Edinburgh will the Cabinet Secretary now prioritise funding for the station that will provide a genuine alternative to many than the car? I have to remind the member that this proposal came from the developer. It did not come from Transport Scotland nor am I aware of any Transport Scotland officials blocking this development from coming forward. I am more than happy to, as I have outlined in my previous response, to meet with the developer to ensure that this comes to fruition but this proposal originally came from the developer who also committed to fund it. I thank the minister for agreeing to meet with me and point out that the Cabinet Secretary had previously visited Winchborough and seen the potential there. Winchborough is likely to grow to a similar size to Llanlithgow. Llanlithgow is one of the busiest stations in Scotland. Of course the financial crash in 2010 did cause significant disruption to everybody, not least the development of Winchborough. It is a bit of rewriting of history in relation to what West London Council could and should have done in regards to development. Does the minister agree with me that the most sensible thing to do is to get all the relevant public bodies together? Network Rail has already indicated to me that there is a possibility of driving the costs down from previous experience of building stations and that creative solutions can and should be found and that potentially the Edinburgh may be a vehicle to make sure that we can try to close the gap of the funding because my constituents most certainly who have bought their houses in which we deserve a station but we all need to work positively and proactively together to make it happen. Minister. I thank the First Minister for her question. She is absolutely right. We do need to get all relevant parties around the table here and we do need to look at creative solutions so I give her that commitment. With regard to the city deal itself as she mentioned some of the changing global priorities at the time perhaps of its inception but the Scottish Government does recognise that those priorities can change and we are always looking to discuss potential changes to the deal. Should partners of course this has to be about local authority partners should they wish to propose them provided they meet the associated eligibility criteria. I would also note that the recent West Lothian Council board notes that the developer and the council will be able to meet the campaign for north-east rail and the MSPs at a meeting plan early in the summer to discuss their proposals. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the campaign group for submitting its response to the second strategic transport projects review consultation which closed on the 15th of this month. All responses are now being considered and these will help inform the public sector and the final set of recommendations that we plan to publish later in the year. I thank the minister for that response and for her acknowledgement of CNER's published response to STPR2 process. She will also be aware of the importance of connecting the towns of Peterhead and Fraserborough to the rail network if these two towns are to benefit from and be a part of creating the new economy that the north-east so desperately needs. Can the minister give assurances that the campaign for north-east rail's response will be included and that the campaign group will be incorporated into design decisions for the next promised feasibility study so that local knowledge, local expertise can be taken on board to ensure that the next study will take into account the needs of north-east communities? The minister. Although the member will know that STPR2 has not recommended the extension of a rail line to Ellen in onwards to a strategic rail priority, I recognise that this may be a regional priority and there remains a path for such rail projects to come forward. We saw that in my constituency in 2019 with the Levenmouth project and that has to be subject to a strong business case being developed and a suitable funding being identified. Any further work on that would be for partners to take forward but I am committed to meeting with those campaigners to work with regional partners on any proposals for a rail link between Dyson-Ellen and further north to Peterhead and Fraservera if they decide to take that option forward. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Since 2016, I have been campaigning for new stations at Cove and Newton Hill. The campaign for north-east rail is also keen to see progress. According to a recent study from Nestrans, most respondents in Cove and Newton Hill are in favour. Now that the multimodal study on the transport minister tells me when transport Scotland will issue its formal response and when the people of the north-east will get the stations that they deserve. Minister. I thank Mr Kerr for his question. I do not know the detail of that in front of me but I would be more than happy to write with further detail. That concludes portfolio questions on the zero energy and transport and there will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.