 I seek your guidance and your help on an important matter, which I believe lies at the heart of the business of this Parliament, and I know it can't be said too often that it's fundamentally important that members of this Parliament have opportunities to ask questions and to receive appropriate and timely answers from ministers. I know how keenly you and the Presiding Officer guard the public reputation of Parliament and the rights of members of this Parliament, including the right to carry out the business of the people of Scotland who seek support and help from members. I wrote to Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, on December 1, and I wrote to seek her advice and help in respect to a burning concern shared by several of my constituents, all of whom had contacted me separately to intercede on their behalf. The concern they had and have is with regard to the level of support for children with autism or ASN within Falkirk schools. Now I'm going to limit my description of these cases in order to preserve the anonymity of those involved, but put simply to stress the urgency of the need of the help of the Cabinet Secretary, these children are getting little or no support in their schooling. The parents are doing the very best they can to help them in each cases, of course, unique. There is complexity, but there is a problem with the provision of appropriate level of support from Falkirk Council, and this is causing immeasurable stress and upset. On top of that, getting a formal diagnosis of autism is, with the calm waiting times in Forth Valley, very difficult. That these children have identified and diagnosed support needs highlights how clear-cut their cases are and that support is needed. There is clearly insufficient resource in place to meet those needs within the education system in Falkirk, and so those children, going into this system, are being failed and failed badly. The impacts of that on the children and their families will be painful and long-lasting. I wrote to the Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, to request an immediate and urgent investigation that is undertaken to understand the reasons for this resource deficiency and that commeserate steps be taken with equal immediacy to rectify the situation. I haven't had an answer. I was given a reference number, 202-200-333-763. There is a problem at Falkirk for pupils with severe needs, and this needs sorted out quickly. I wrote again over two weeks ago to the Cabinet Secretary and still have had no answer. Can you please help me with the concerns of my constituents? What more can I be doing, or should I be doing, to receive an answer from the Cabinet Secretary to my inquiries? The Government's response or otherwise to correspondence from members does not engage the standing orders of the Parliament, and hence does not engage myself as the chair. However, the member will be aware of other potential ways in which to pursue important matters. By, for example, written questions, with respect to which there are time deadlines set forth in the standing orders of this Parliament. I hope that that is helpful. So I would now like to move on to the next item of business, which is indeed portfolio questions, and the portfolio questions today are net zero, energy and transport. Question 1 was not lodged. I call question number 2, James Dornan, who is joining us remotely. Mr Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help modernise recycling facilities in Glasgow? Minister Lornan is later. He recently awarded Glasgow City Council over £21 million from the Recycling Improvement Fund to improve recycling in the city. The investment will support the introduction of a new twin-stream curbside service for the separation of separate collection of recyclable materials, making it easier for households to recycle and improving the quality and quantity of recycling. The council's investment in a new material recovery facility will also mean more materials being reprocessed rather than thrown away. James Dornan. I thank the minister for that response and welcome it. It would also be helpful, though, if the minister could outline what other steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve recycling across the country, as this will obviously be an essential tool in the fight against the climate crisis. Minister. The Recycling Improvement Fund is one important part of our overall efforts to improve recycling. It is already making a big impact across Scotland, with 17 councils already benefiting from an award. We will soon publish a circular economy bill for Parliament to scrutinise and a final version of our waste route map. Together, those will support and empower local authorities to drive forward the modernisation and improvement of recycling facilities across Scotland and cut the overall amount of waste produced through, for example, incentivising re-use over disposable products. That will help to cut emissions, tackling the climate emergency, and it will mean that everyone benefits from less litter and better public services. Efforts to modernise recycling facilities across Scotland are welcome. There are some items, such as disposable vapes, that simply should not be clogging up our waste management systems in the first place. The Scottish Government has announced a review into those items, which is welcome, but we cannot afford to wait for action. Does the minister support the proposal for a pilot ban of disposable vapes in Dundee to help inform national policy? I would say that that is a bit wide of the question that concerns modernising recycling facilities in Glasgow. Question 3, Emma Harper. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion sets has held with Network Rail regarding passenger services on the west coast mainline, including services calling at Lockerbie. Minister Jenny Gilruth. Transport Scotland has regular meetings with Network Rail and train operating companies regarding passenger services at railway stations on the west coast mainline in Scotland. Lockerbie services are provided by TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast, which are train operating companies specified and funded by the UK Government. I discussed TransPennine services when I met the UK Government rail minister very recently. TransPennine services at Lockerbie have been affected by an unacceptable level of cancellation and delay, compounded by industrial action. Emma Harper. I thank the minister for that response. The TransPennine service from Lockerbie is in a complete fancle. Trains consistently cancelled and delayed with no notice, no replacement bus and no alternative options. This has a major impact on my constituents who rely on the service to travel to the central belt and south of the border. Only 43 per cent of TransPennine services currently run on time, with cross-country, Avanti and LNER occasionally picking up the slack by making unplanned stops at Lockerbie. Will the minister agree to make representations to TransPennine regarding how unacceptable the situation is? Will she commit to helping me by facilitating a meeting with Network Rail regarding the contract for the service? TransPennine is a cross-border rail operator, so the contract is run and managed by the UK Government DFT. That is ultimately a matter for the UK Government to resolve. As I alluded to in my initial response, I have raised Ms Harper's concerns directly with the UK Government rail minister very recently. Humennum acknowledged the poor performance and I am advised that the DFT is working closely with TransPennine to improve performance levels. I have also separately written to the previous minister for rail, Kevin Foster, on the matter of cross-border performance in relation to the Avanti contract, also managed by the DFT. The member made a call that Mr Foster provided Avanti with a contract extension last year, despite Avanti's poor performance. I am happy to make the direct representations that Ms Harper has asked me for this afternoon. I will ask my officials to facilitate the meeting. She is also requested with Network Rail directly. The situation is worse than a ffancle. There is nothing to get tied up or tangled. I wondered if the minister would consider a solution closer to home, given that ScotRail is now in public ownership, whether she would take forward discussions about running a passenger service that actually calls at Lockerbie. I recognise the frustration of Mr Mundell and, of course, we have heard similarly from Ms Harper in relation to those services. Those services are ultimately a contract that is managed by the DFT, so I would urge the UK Government to help TransPennine to resolve those issues. I raised that issue with the rail minister only a matter of weeks ago now. I am more than happy to make further representations. If Mr Mundell is able to persuade his colleagues down south to give the necessary focus to resolving the situation here, because the contract is managed by the DFT, then I am sure that his constituents would welcome that. I hope that, in her representations, the minister will back my calls for TransPennine and Avanti to lose that franchise, which is, frankly, a failed one. Last month I asked the minister if plans to remove peak fares would cover all routes in Scotland. She said that ScotRail might be a ScotRail station, but, as we know, the services are provided by TransPennine and Avanti. Can she confirm, in those discussions about those fares, that she has raised that issue with those two companies to make sure that passengers who are going from one Scottish station to another, irrespective of who is delivering that service, also benefit from the removal of peak fares? Passengers from Lockerbie should not be treated as second class just because, at the moment, ScotRail is choosing to run services from there. I recognise the members' observations there. The peak fares promotion, which will be coming forward in the coming months, of course, applies to ScotRail services. I do not have responsibility for those services that sit out with the Scottish Government's control. I am more than happy to raise these matters directly with the train operating companies, as I alluded to in my response to Ms Harper and, of course, directly with the UK Government. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with TransPort of Scotland with the future of the railway industry, including a supply chain in Scotland. I have regular discussions with my officials in TransPort of Scotland about a wide range of rail matters affecting the Scottish railway industry. At the end of last year, I spoke at the rail industry association conference, which considered the supply chain within the rail industry in Scotland. Last month, I met with the railway unions to discuss the issue, particularly in the context of public ownership of ScotRail. The minister will be aware of the Calais railway works in Springburn, which was forced to close in 2019, despite being profitable having a highly skilled workforce and being of strategic importance to Scotland's railway infrastructure. Since the closure of ScotRail trains are routinely sent to England and Wales for maintenance repair and overhaul due to a lack of capacity to do that work in Scotland. However, there is interest in returning the Calais to use as a railway engineering and maintenance site again, but it will likely require intervention from the Government and its agencies to make it happen. Will the minister agree to meet me and representatives from the trade unions alongside Scottish Government agencies like Scottish Enterprise to find a workable and viable solution that will bring long-term benefits to Scotland's economy by reopening the Calais railway works? I suspect that the member's question probably cuts across ministerial portfolios in relation to responsibilities. He will appreciate that I was not in post, I do not think, at the time of the works that he has outlined in relation to Springburn and its closure. However, I recognise very much the need to encourage Scottish jobs in Scotland to support the rail industry, particularly as we move forward with our decarbonisation agenda. I have discussed that at length with the rail unions in recent times. I have been more than happy to meet the member and more broadly with other ministers who may also have responsibilities in this space to look at what more we might be able to do. The Railway Industry Association, which represents the supply chain in the sector, has welcomed the publication of the high-level output specification and statement of funds available for Scotland's railway infrastructure for CP7. The Scottish Government's vision for a railway is one of an attractive, environmentally friendly mode of transport and a wholly publicly owned, fully integrated rail network. Does the minister agree with me that if Labour shares those aspirations then it's time they backed calls for the full devolution of rail powers to bring track and train together and ensure Scotland has the levers it needs to create a sustainable rail service in the future? Yes, I do. Earlier this week, the third UK transport secretary in my time as transport minister presented a vision for the railways in Britain, which fundamentally sits at odds with the approach that we have taken in Scotland. Mark Harper wants to use more private sector investment in our railways. We want to see less. That is why we took ScotRail into public ownership last April. It's worth saying that the Scottish Government has consistently presented a clear case for the full devolution of rail powers. The Conservative UK Government's plans for rail will not deliver that, and public ownership of ScotRail, of course, means a railway should work for the people who own it, not for shareholders. That's exactly why powers over train and track must be fully devolved to Scotland. The minister talks about her vision for ScotRail. Perhaps it could include lower fares and a simpler ticketing system. I didn't catch the end of Mr Simpson's question, but we have lower rail fares in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. I think that on average, around 15 per cent cheaper rail tickets are in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK. It's worth pointing out that we have an offer coming forward in relation to the removal of peak fares, which another member has asked about today. I absolutely want to drive a more accessible and affordable railway for the people of Scotland. That's what public ownership should be about. That is the vision for Scotland's railways. We have long been promised investment at Longannet by the rail industry. We have the right infrastructure sitting there to provide thousands of green jobs and reopen an important freight and passenger route on the back of any potential investment. Does the minister agree with me that regeneration at Longannet remains key to the future of Scotland's railways and the supply chain that is based in Scotland? I agree with the sentiment of the member's question and I strongly support attracting railway industry suppliers to the strategic Longannet site. I thought that it was at the time deeply disappointing that TALGO was unsuccessful in securing that rolling stock order for HS2 from the UK Government. That would have allowed TALGO to quickly confirm its plans for a manufacturing facility on the site, which is a missed opportunity. More broadly, my officials, working alongside Scottish Enterprise, remain available to discuss relocation opportunities with rail industry suppliers looking for that strategic development site in relation to Longannet. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to address coastal erosion in the north-east Scotland region. Through our dynamic coast project, we have worked closely with local authorities to help them to plan for coastal adaptation. In our programme for government 2020, we announced a new £11.7 million capital budget over four years for coastal change adaptation, which starts in 2022-23. In the north-east, in 2023-24, Aberdeen and Angus will each receive £150,000 and Aberdeenshire £206,000 for coastal change adaptation, making a total commitment of over half a million. In addition, the Montrose, Dune and Beech Replenishment project has also received £350,000 from our Nature Restoration Fund. The people of Montrose are telling us that there are scant years left in the Dune system and the historic golf course. A few fairways have already been lost to the sea and there are huge implications for flooding. When will the Scottish Government grasp the nettle and decide whether it will support a sand motor at Montrose? I am absolutely aware of the serious erosion issues to the sand dunes in Montrose and the impact that this can have for flooding for residents. I completely understand their concern about flooding and equally about how important the golf course itself is to the people of Montrose. The Scottish Government is responding to that, not least through a research programme dynamic coast, which maps risk and working with COSLA. We have agreed to assign money directly to those risks as they are identified. Officials in Marine Scotland's licensing team are also working with the Port Authority to investigate whether it could be beneficial to use dredge material to shore up the situation there. I know that Angus Council has also worked on a flood risk management plan, which seeks to address both erosion and flooding in a co-ordinated way. In all those ways, we are seeking to rise to what is undoubtedly a challenge of our coastlines having to move. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is regarding any impact in Scotland to the new report by UK100 that highlights the benefits of clean air and net zero approaches. Our Clean Air for Scotland 2 strategy recognises the significant benefits of aligning approaches to address climate change and improve air quality, particularly in areas such as transport, agriculture and industrial emissions. Our strategy sets out an explicit commitment to ensuring that the policies that we pursue to reduce climate change also deliver co-benefits for air quality. We have done much work in that regard, not least our low emission zones, and a lot of work to decarbonise public transport. It is paying off because, for the first time outside of recent lockdown periods, no monitoring sites are exceeding air quality objectives. The environmental organisation UK100 has said that wider progress is being hampered by the UK Government's lack of a coherent national strategy, disjointed short-term funding and the refusal to recognise the importance of cans. My view is that the cans approach aligns with much of what we are seeking to do in Scotland, but recent exchanges with Westminster demonstrate that this is not a view that the Tories share. Does the minister therefore share my concern that this is regrettably another example where the UK Government's obstinacy regarding net zero may hold Scotland back? I absolutely agree with Michelle Thomson's sentiment. We need faster action, higher ambition for the UK Government on delivering net zero and to do so justly. The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to act. We will continue to do so. They must take the action as necessary. Better still, we want Scotland to be an independent country with powers over our own resources so that we can both tackle climate change and at the same time build that clean, green, prosperous economy of the future that we know Scotland can have. Michelle Thomson has strangely failed to mention the report's second recommendation, which talks about local authorities getting to net zero needing longer-term dedicated funding commitments to allow proper planning and implementation. A P&J report last week showed that, since Transport Scotland no longer subsidises the repair and maintenance of the public EV charge point network in Highland Council area, it is going to be cheaper to run a petrol than an electric car. Does the minister think that Transport Scotland is demonstrating exactly the sort of short-termist, short-sighted thinking that the report councils against? Can she tell me if similar cuts have been made in any other Scottish local authorities? I do not agree with that whatsoever. In fact, I know that our EV infrastructure coverage is some of the best across the UK. I think that we have some of the most per head of population outside of London. However, not least that, the 2023-24 draft budget prioritises the Government's commitment to adjust transition to net zero for a climate and biodiversity resilience Scotland. It does that, backed by some £2.2 billion of funding. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress towards the launch of the deposit return scheme. Scotland's deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce littering, cut emissions and build a more circular economy. This is a bold, complex and transformational scheme in line with the scale of the climate emergency that we are facing. It will be a significant change for everyone in Scotland. I am pleased that industry has made very significant progress towards implementation, a finding echoed in our recent independent review. This week, I am writing to all MSPs to provide a detailed update on progress and to highlight the additional actions taken by the Scottish Government and Circularly Scotland, the scheme administrator to provide support for businesses to get ready for DRS. The momentum underway is a testament to the efforts being made by businesses, Circularly Scotland and the Scottish Government to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches to launch. I will continue to engage closely with industry to ensure that this transformational scheme is a success. I thank the minister for her answer, but I sense that, with less than six months to go, she is still woefully complacent about the impact of the deposit return scheme. The owner of Broughton Brewery and the Scottish Borders say that it will pose real challenges to their business. She says that they compete with other small brewers based across the UK and a different system will leave small Scottish brewers an economic disadvantage. They add that we will have to invest in producer fees, revised packaging and an increase in our stock holding, which impacts on our cash flow and our ability to innovate and protect jobs. Will the minister now act in the voice of small brewers and postpone the introduction of DRS for small producers and put in place a permanent low volume exemption scheme? Or is she going to push those small producers to the brink and will fully carry on regardless? I am very grateful for the member's question. I am very aware of the concerns of small producers. We have been working closely with Circularity Scotland. We have already published new producer fees that are lower than originally planned for the scheme, reducing the overall cost. Day 1 payments for producers using UK-wide barcodes will also be reduced by two thirds from 2.4 months of fees to three weeks of fees. There will be no registration fee for producers with an annual turnover of less than £85,000 or lower. Producers that only fill and seal single-use drink containers at point of sale for all other producers, the registration fee will be £365. I am very keen for this to work properly for small producers and I will be meeting with small producers tomorrow morning to find out what more we can do to support them to fully participate in this scheme. I call supplementaries from Christine Grahame. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I share the member's concerns about Broughton Brewery and My Constituency. However, Dryden Aqua, a very profitable company also in My Constituency, recycles glass for innovative water filtration systems. The proposed DRS scheme, as it stands, puts this business at risk. Will the minister meet with them to discuss their concerns? Minister. Including glass in our scheme will save over 1.2 megatons of CO2 over 25 years and will significantly increase the quantity and quality of glass recyclet. Our scheme in Scotland, like similar schemes around the world, is being delivered and funded by industry, so the materials generated by this scheme and the disposition of them are a matter for industry, and that is for circularity Scotland, not for Scottish Government. However, I am always happy to meet with companies that are working in my portfolio area and I will contact the member to make arrangements. Thank you. I call supplementaries Stephen Kerr. I really feel that I need to stand up and plead with this minister to listen not only to members of our own party who are making a case for businesses but also the businesses themselves. I am, as I am sure with many other members, deluged with contact from producers and retailers and hospitality sector saying that they fear this scheme. They want details but they fear the calamitous impact that this scheme is going to have on their businesses. They fear going out of business. Will the minister please listen to her colleagues and will she please listen to industry who know what they are talking about and will she assure us that she is open to change so that this calamity they fear can be averted? I am very aware of the concerns of industry and I meet regularly with large retailers, small retailers, large producers and small producers. I am particularly aware of the concerns of small producers and I am planning to meet them again tomorrow to find out what else we can do. In listening to the concerns of industry, we have and are adapting this scheme. The extension to the go live date that was announced in last December to this year gave industry additional time to prepare. Circularity Scotland announced on 27 January an increase in the return handling fees for retailers to help support them to collect these materials. I have already listed out the reduced fees for producers to help producers to participate in the scheme. I have also listed out that I am meeting with producers to find out what else we can do to help them to participate fully in the scheme. I am very keen for all Scottish businesses who are affected to be able to participate successfully in the scheme. We have heard about 600 producers who have raised their concerns, some from my constituency in the Orkney, where the logistical challenges of DRS are even greater. Over the last year, I have worked with many of the local stakeholders to try to get answers to the questions that they have about how the scheme will work in practice. Now that it is clear that those questions cannot be answered in the timeframe set, can I urge the Minister to think about pausing the scheme to avoid damaging businesses, public confidence and even the case for DRS itself? I thank the member very much for the question. The scheme in Scotland will go live on 16 August this year. The extension to that go live date that brought it forward to this year was announced in December 2021 to give industry more time to prepare. As with other similar successful schemes around the world, our scheme is being delivered and funded by industry. Those organisational matters are for industry to resolve. I am working very hard to facilitate industry to have the answers to that organisational blueprint so that we can move forward with a successful scheme. Much progress has been made to deliver the scheme and we are building momentum toward that go live date of August 16 this year. To ask the Scottish Government in relation to support that it can provide for households in Scotland, what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding energy affordability? We have urged the UK Government to ensure that the interests of Scottish consumers are represented in the decision making around future support for energy with energy costs and have called repeatedly for support to be targeted towards those who need it the most. Last year, the First Minister chaired two energy summits that were attended by energy suppliers, advice agencies and third sector representatives. We continue to build upon those and subsequent discussions with stakeholders and to identify further actions that we can take within our devolved powers to mitigate the impacts of high energy costs upon Scottish consumers. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. While most people are struggling to heat their homes, it has been reported in the last week that big energy companies are making record profits. Given energy pricing is reserved, will the cabinet secretary urge the chancellor to tax share buybacks, expand the windfall tax and scrap plans to raise the energy bill cap by a further £500 in April? In relation to his final point, yes, I would ask him to revisit the price cap due to the increase in the next couple of months. It is galling to households across the country where consumers are facing hikes in their energy costs while at the same time we see major energy providers making record profits. I cannot think of a better example of the sheer failure of the UK Government to regulate and manage our energy sector than the example that we saw over the course of the last week alone. It is a very clear example of systemic failure by successive governments in the UK to manage the energy markets in a way that reflects the needs of consumers. All the worse for consumers here in Scotland, given that our energy costs are greater than any other part of the UK, lean to even more households finding themselves in extreme fuel poverty as a result of that systemic failure by the present UK Government on this issue. That is why the UK Government should take urgent action to extend the windfall tax on those companies who are making record profits at the present time off the back of households right across the country who are paying extensive price increases as a result of Westminster Government failure over many years. That concludes portfolio questions, and there will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow those front-bench teams who wish to change positions. Thank you.