 The first item of business is afternoon's portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Covid 19 recovery, and parliamentary business. I remind members there are a couple of groupings, questions 1 and 3, questions 2 and 4, both grouped. Therefore, I'll take supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. There is quite a bit of interest in this portfolio and the next one, so the usual request for questions and indeed responses to be as brief as possible. Question 1, Sandesh Gohany. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will propose scheduling parliamentary time to debate strengthening the scrutiny role of the Parliament in holding the Scottish ministers to account. Minister George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Dr Gohany for his question. the Scottish Parliament is responsible for all matters relating to its function and internal operation and is for the parliamentary bureau to recommend the plenary business schedule to Parliament. The Government would encourage any member wishing to propose reform of current parliamentary procedures to raise such proposals with the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The Government stands ready, if invited, to discuss any reform proposals. Earlier today I met Donald Cameron to discuss his proposals for parliamentary reform and what was our very productive meeting. Dr Gilhane. Minister, parliamentary scrutiny is so important in a democracy, as it means that we get to challenge the Government on its failings. As we know, there are too many to count from this SNP Government. We know that the SNP do all they can to suppress scrutiny, as we have seen from their attempt to stop the public from viewing their leadership hustings. To disprove this notion, could the Minister commit today that his Government will not be taking away any opposition debating time? Minister, can you move the microphone slightly towards you, please? Yes, no problem. Most of that was complete and utter nonsense from the member with the great respect. As I mentioned in my previous answer, I had a very constructive meeting with Donald Cameron regarding his proposals and looked forward to his future proposals coming forward. One of the things that I would say to Dr Gilhane is that Mr Cameron did this in a very constructive manner. If he wants to work with the parliamentary bureau, I would ask him first and foremost to talk to his own business manager and take it from there. Question 3, Stephen Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will propose time for parliamentary debate on the effective scrutiny of Scottish ministers. Minister George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you, Mr Kerr, for the same question. As I just confirmed in my answer to Dr Gilhane, I would reiterate that this Parliament's responsibility for all matters relating to its function and internal operation. I know that the minister is a committed and passionate Parliamentarian and that he is as keen as I am to safeguard the reputation of the Scottish Parliament. I also know that he will be very familiar with the obligations of the ministerial code. Yesterday, Minister Lorna Slater made no serious attempt to answer a question that was asked of her four times. There are other examples of ministers reverting to scripted answers even when they have bear no relation to the question asked. As the Parliament's man in the Government, will the minister remind his colleagues, as was highlighted by the Presiding Officer yesterday, that there is an obligation, more borne of respect than anything else, to fairly and squarely address the questions being asked of them in this chamber? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Mr Kerr for that supplementary question. On many occasions, Mr Kerr and I have had our interpretation of answers and discussions will have been entirely different. It is down to the individual as to what they interpret the answer to be. However, I, like my colleagues, take a role in Parliament very seriously, as does my colleague Lorna Slater. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impact on turnout at future Scottish Parliament and local authority elections of the introduction by the UK Government of voter ID requirements for elections to the UK Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Mr Allan for that question. The requirement for voter ID was introduced by the UK Government for reserved elections. Voters that devolved elections in Scotland for the Scottish Parliamentary and local government do not require voter ID. The Scottish Government remains strongly opposed to it and has concerns about the potential for confusion and disenfranchement of voters. We will look closely at the operation of voter ID in local government elections in England this May, and my officials and several electoral administrators from across Scotland will be attending some of the polling places as observers. Given that the incidents of voter fraud that this measure proports to tackle are extremely rare, as far as anyone can establish, does the minister believe that this measure has been introduced in good faith, or is it simply a way for the Tories to try and cling on to a couple of last remaining seats at the next UK election? I think that Mr Allan made his point clear there, but the introduction of voter ID will no doubt make it more difficult for some voters to participate. That is why this Parliament has rejected going down that route for all elections. Any policy that risks excluding voters should be, Presiding Officer, opposed. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to increase voter turnout in both Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I thank Mr Doris for that question. Turn out at the most recent Scottish Parliament election in 2021 was at 63.5 per cent, an increase of 7.7 per cent from the election before. At local government elections in May 2022 turnout was 44.8 per cent, a 2 per cent decrease from 2017. The changes in turnout are a result of a range of factors and we have been seeing in the past voters will turn out greater numbers when they are engaged. That is not something that the Government can wholly influence, but our on-going consultation on electoral reform seeks views on how to improve voter registration and how to make voting more accessible. Votes must not just be cast in large numbers, they must also count. That is a concern that I have within Canal Ward in my constituency, which has more rejected ballot papers than any other council ward at the 2020 election three times the national average. I have raised those concerns constructively with the Electoral Commission. Will the minister meet me to discuss my suggestion that the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to make an impact to reduce the levels of such ballot papers, as well as other specific ideas that I have to make sure that voters' votes are cast and counted and not inadvertently spoiled? I thank Mr Doris for that question. As always, I am happy to meet Mr Doris to discuss any of the proposals that he has, but I will reiterate what I said previously to Mr Doris in this chamber, which is that I agree that we must do whatever we can to ensure that no one loses their vote because they do not understand how to complete the ballot paper. I am pleased to hear that Mr Doris has constructive engagement with the Electoral Commission and others, who have a key role to play in supporting and educating voters. I will consider what more can be done on this issue and will take forward after electoral reform consultation closes. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its Covid recovery strategy is supporting the tackling of health inequalities, including in relation to accessing key services such as dentistry. The Scottish Government's Covid recovery strategy is addressing the systemic inequalities that were exacerbated during the pandemic and includes a focus on the wellbeing of children and young people. Following restrictions on dentistry during the pandemic, we introduced a new enhanced examination from February 2022, targeting oral health inequalities, particularly in children. The latest statistics show that over 1.6 million NHS examination appointments were completed between April and October 2022, which includes 440,000 child examinations from February 2022. That means that we are on course for over 3.5 million contacts in the 2022-23 financial year, an increase of 40 per cent in NHS dental activity compared with the previous year. I am inundated by constituents who were not able to see a dentist during Covid and who now find that their NHS dentist has gone private, not dentists who have left or stopped practising just ones that will only see patients if they pay. Does the Deputy First Minister recognise the health inequality that perpetuates it? Will he use his cross-governmental role in co-ordinating the Covid response to see what more can be done in the time that he has left? This is an important issue that Mr Mundell raises. It is important that people have access to NHS dentistry services. People in some circumstances opt for private dental care and, in other circumstances, we have to make sure that that is provided. I know that NHS Dumfriesen-Galloway, in relation to the constituency points that Mr Mundell has raised, is focusing on improving the registration levels through the work of the local dental task force. I understand that up to 4,000 additional NHS registrations have been made available since the new year in the Dumfriesen-Galloway board area. That is an encouraging first step, but I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is an effective NHS dentistry service available in all parts of Scotland, including in Dumfriesen-Galloway. I have a number of supplementaries. I want to get them all in, but I want to ask brief questions and brief answers. First, Paul Sweeney. Can the Deputy First Minister please confirm when the Scottish Government will provide the British Dental Association with the costings associated with the revised determination 1 so that formal negotiations on payment reform can commence? I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will write to Mr Sweeney about it. We must face up to the reality of Brexit, given that more than 60 per cent of the dental workforce is European and, before the EU referendum, consistently well over 500 dentists trained in the EU and after registered in the UK. Will the cabinet secretary outline the measures that has been taken to mitigate those challenges with a view to sustaining a rural dental workforce? There is a general issue within our society about the availability of skills in the post-Brexit environment. We are seeing some of the hard realities about the contraction in the working-age population within Scotland, now presenting themselves. Those were things that were a substance of real worries 20 years ago. They were alleviated by our participation in the European Union and the free movement of individuals. They are now an acute threat to our society today, so we have to recognise that. In relation to the specific points that Gillian Martin raises with me, we have put in place a number of measures to assist in the recruitment and retention of dental staff for their fiscal incentives for newly qualified and trainee dentists. Despite the workforce challenges that we face, we remain in a positive position with relative strength of 57 dentists per 100,000 of population, providing NHS dental services in Scotland compared to 43 per 100,000 in England. I recently met local NHS dentists in North East Fife who report a significant backlog that they are having to work through. However, there is significant increase in decay because the patients have been waiting for so long. However, they are concerned that they will not be able to deal with the backlog because the cost of treatment is not matched by the fees that they are receiving from the Government. Will the Minister take it up with the health secretary to ensure that the new fee regime reflects the cost of treatment so that we can deal with the backlog? The Government reviews all those issues on an on-going basis. I look with care at the points that Mr Rennie makes, but I have to put on the record that, as I have said to Parliament on countless occasions, there are financial constraints in which we are operating. We are trying to support public services to the greatest effect that we possibly can do, but there will be challenges in dealing with the recovery from Covid and the significant backlogs that will exist as a consequence of the absence of treatment for so many people for so long. To ask the Scottish Government how its Covid recovery strategy is supporting third-sector organisations in rural and island communities such as Argyll and Bute to improve health support, including for people with long Covid. The third sector is supported across each local authority area through third sector interfaces, which offer a variety of development needs and provide a voice into local decision-making structures, including health and social care partnerships and integrated joint boards. Increasingly, third sector interfaces are involved in broken new services across boundaries and managing funds for local partners. For example, in Argyll and Bute, there are more than 200 health and social care-related services being delivered by the third sector with support from the third sector interface. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer. During the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw innovative community-led activity to support community resilience. That worked particularly well in rural and island communities of Argyll and Bute, where people have a strong sense of community spirit and social capital. For example, they know their neighbours and who might be vulnerable or at risk. The community planning structure has provided a framework for mobilising that support, but there is much learning that can be gained from putting power into local communities. How can the role and power of communities be strengthened for future community resilience? One of the most important points is that we need to make sure that we lose none of the ways of working that were so prevalent in our communities, particularly in rural and island communities that have been highlighted in the original answer from Jenny Minto. I think that those services and those approaches should be enabled by the work of community planning partnerships. One of the priorities of the Covid recovery programme board has been to work with the community planning infrastructure around Scotland, which exists in every local authority area, to bring together organisations and, through the third sector interface, to ensure that the availability and the opportunities of third sector activity to enhance that provision are clearly understood and articulated. I assure Jenny Minto that that work has a high priority within Government to ensure that the vital work of community organisations is significant as we take the steps to recover from Covid. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. If you would indulge me for a second, as I understand, those might be the last Covid recovery questions at which I will be shadowing the Deputy First Minister, I just recognise all the effort that he has put into that role over the past number of years and our mostly cordial exchanges here in the chamber and also in committee, which I am sure will continue with him on the back benches. In relation to the question, the Covid recovery committee has heard from long Covid sufferers including those from rural and island communities, who have been very clear in their view that the number one ask that they would have is for the introduction of long Covid clinics in Scotland to reflect what happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will the Deputy First Minister consider in his last few weeks on the role whether those can be introduced? I am grateful to Mr Fraser for his kind remarks and I look forward to deploying what contribution I can make to Parliament in the years to come from the back benches, where I look forward to questioning Government ministers on the way in which they deport their responsibilities and to ensure for Dr Gilhane and Mr Kerr's benefit that there is proper accountability in Parliament. I shall ensure single-handedly from my parliamentary perspective. In relation to that, I recognise the substance of the issue that Mr Fraser raises about long Covid and long Covid clinics. Those issues are being examined to determine whether or not long Covid clinics are the appropriate way for them. What is absolutely essential is that anybody who is experiencing long Covid should, through their interaction with the general practice system in Scotland, be able to access healthcare services that will meet their needs. Their needs will vary depending on how long Covid has affected those individuals, but in all circumstances they should be able to have access to the appropriate level of care and support. I assure Mr Fraser that I will use my remaining period in office to ensure that that is the case. I can confirm Mr Swinney that Mr Ewing has a seat safely secured for you up at the back. Jackie Baillie Long Covid Scotland tells us that one in five Covid sufferers have actually been forced to go private for tests and investigations because there is a lack of access to NHS services. We now know that there are 175,000 people living with long Covid. That is three times more than when the Government announced £3 million for services specific for that. Will the Scottish Government increase the funding because that is what is necessary to help to support those with long Covid? If you will forgive me for a second, I want to make it clear that I will make my own choices about where I sit in this Parliament in the foreseeable future. In relation to the point that I will certainly sit nowhere near Jackie Baillie, I can tell you that. I am nothing but candid to Parliament. It is all part of my belief in parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, which I have championed all my days. Jackie Baillie asked me to increase the funding. I wonder if Jackie Baillie was paying attention to the budget, because the budget increased the funding to the national health service by £1 billion. It would not have happened if I had not taken the tough decisions to increase tax. Jackie Baillie is a piece of parliamentary feedback that is running commentary from Jackie Baillie who speaks throughout her answers when she is not listening to the answers that has been given carefully by Government ministers. She is also doing that again as I continue to give my answer and will continue on this farago of nonsense for as long as it takes me for Jackie Baillie to stop talking while I am answering the question. I may be here a long time. The point is longer than I anticipate being here. The key point to Jackie Baillie is that the funding has increased for the national health service and that can be deployed to meet the needs of individuals within our society, which is what it is intended to do. I am briefly Beatrice Wishart. I have met several constituents living with long Covid, some of them known as first waivers. They told me that they felt that the support was not there when they needed it. That impacts on family life, too, with breadwinners unable to work and children who are coping with the enormous change in their lives as a consequence of having a parent with long Covid. What more can be done to support those living with long Covid and those within their household? The key point is to make sure that, for those who are suffering from long Covid, they obtain the clinical interventions that they require. As I answered Mr Fraser earlier on, that will vary from individual to individual. It is vital that the increase in funding for the national health service is important and that it enables the health service to better meet the needs of individuals and their clinical issues. In relation to the family context that Beatrice Wishart raises, which is very important, there will be a wide range of services available in the community. I am very familiar with some of the carers support services in Shetland, which I have always admired over the years. There are very good community-based services that will be available to support families in those circumstances. It will be a mix of clinical and non-clinical interventions. Crucially, we have to make sure that that focuses on the needs of individuals and families that are right at the heart of the Covid recovery strategy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government whether any post-legislative reviews of the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland Act 2022 are being conducted. They are. The 2022 act includes a range of temporary justice measures that were due to expire in November this year. Under the terms of the act, ministers must review the operation of each temporary measure before it expires to inform a decision on whether it should be extended for a further year. If seeking any extension, ministers must lay regulations to amend the expiry date alongside a statement setting out the findings of the review, allowing for full parliamentary scrutiny. The remainder of the act comprises permanent provisions and no post-legislative review is currently planned. Can I also wish the cabinet secretary all the best as he returns to the back bench? The coronavirus recovery and reform bill gives Scottish ministers the power to release prisoners early, even before they have completed their sentence. That power was used disastrously by the Scottish National Party Government during the pandemic, where they released hundreds of offenders, at least 40 per cent of whom went on to re-offend. Yet, despite that, the Scottish National Party Government wants to give themselves this permanent power to release prisoners early in the bail and release from custody Scotland bill. Will the cabinet secretary commit to taking out the provision from the bail and release from custody until the review has been conducted or whether the power is necessary and whether the reform of the act takes place? There will, of course, be full parliamentary scrutiny of the provisions that Mr Balfour has put forward. There will be ample opportunity for that scrutiny to take place so that Parliament can determine those questions. Ministers will, of course, engage on that subject. Do you ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to propose the schedule of time for a ministerial statement on compulsory sale orders? Any proposal for government, business and Parliament, as agreed by the Scottish Cabinet, subject to consideration by the Parliamentary Bureau and in turn approval by the Parliament? I am aware that Mr Dunbar will have heard the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government speak about compulsory sales order during January's housing debate. The cabinet secretary highlighted the need for any new powers to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and the careful consideration that this requires. I thank the minister for his answer. Compulsory sale orders when introduced will allow local authorities additional powers to deal with both vacant, derelict and abandoned land and buildings and will allow a greater ability to tackle private absentee landowners. That could mean that the eyesore of logi shops in my constituency could be taken over and turned into a useful community asset. Can the minister advise on a timescale for the introduction of CSOs? Thank you very much. As Paisley's MSP, I can feel the member's pain on this issue, but, as I mentioned, the ECHR implications for compulsory sale orders need careful consideration. I suggest that Jackie Dunbar contact the cabinet secretary for social justice, housing and local government to talk through the detail. It may be that compulsory purchase could be a suitable vehicle to tackle the issue in the meantime, but I encourage Aberdeen City Council to make contact with officials in the Scottish Government to discuss this further. That concludes the portfolio questions on Covid-19 recovery and parliamentary business. We will now move on to the next portfolio, which is finance and the economy. I encourage members who wish to ask a supplementary to press the request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to define green jobs, including green energy jobs, to help to ensure that investment and resources can be targeted to achieve a low-carbon economy. The Scottish Government included a green jobs definition when the green jobs fund was launched in 2021, with the aim of supporting businesses and their supply chains to help them to better transition to a low-carbon economy. That definition ensured that suitable projects could be identified and that all green jobs created over the life of those projects accurately measured. Skills Development Scotland has highlighted that we talk much about the technical and practical skills that are required for our new economy, but rarely address the lack of meta-skills, working with people, problem-solving and so on. Those skills are in abundance in jobs that should be considered green jobs, those in health and social care, culture for example. Those are low-carbon jobs and will remain the foundation of our new low-carbon economy and society. Will the Minister commit to redefining green jobs across all sectors and also to engage with workers, especially those with fewer opportunities for retraining and re-skilling, who already possess the meta-skills necessary for the success of Scotland's new economy? The member raises a very important point, and I will certainly reflect on the argument that she makes. As she will be aware, there are several definitions of green jobs at the moment, not just in this country but throughout the UK and Europe and the rest of the world. Indeed, at UK level, the Scottish Government has been engaging with the Office of National Statistics who are currently reviewing their definition because the current definition is out of date and with the efforts towards night zero and all the new jobs that are being created, it is really important that we have an up-to-date definition of green jobs. I will certainly take on board the points raised by the members when we move forward with this debate. A lot of interest on this question. I will try to get all the supplementaries in, but they will need to be brief as all the responses first to Liam Martin. Thank you very much. The ministers will waive my report on just transition which outlined the issues that oil and gas workers have in transition. Could you provide an update on the work that the Scottish Government is carrying out to achieve taking down those barriers for them transitioning to low-carbon jobs? As the member will no doubt be aware, we have our just transition planning framework, which is a world-first and our first sector-based plan, which is the draft energy strategy and just transition plan. It is currently under consultation until May. I know that the member, Julian Martin, takes a very close interest given her constituency interest in the offshore industry in northeast Scotland and I urge everyone to submit to that consultation. We are also working with communities, businesses and workers as we develop further sector-based plans, with drafts being published before the end of the year alongside the climate change plan. That will cover areas such as buildings and construction, land use and agriculture and transport. There is a lot of work taking place to meet the concerns expressed by Julian Martin. Liam Kerr An independent report suggests that this Government's approach to achieving net zero will cut Scottish oil and gas and low-carbon GVA from £19 billion to £12 billion by 2050. As a direct result of a reduction in jobs, conservatively, estimated is going from £57,000 to £32,000 by 2030, and those jobs that remain will be on a far lower average salary. Therefore, rather than gaming definitions to appease the green coalition partners, does the minister agree that this Government's time would be much better spent revising its threadbare energy strategy? Can I tell the member that I spent a great deal of time talking to companies in the offshore sector and energy sector in the north-east of Scotland in the member's region perhaps more than he does? What I hear back from them is that they see massive job opportunities in the journey towards net zero. Indeed, RGU and other institutions have predicted that we could have a net gain in jobs in north-east Scotland if we get that right in the coming decades. Irrespective of his party's policies or my party's policies, the north-east province is in decline and, therefore, those jobs have to be replaced. That is unavoidable, and that is why it is so important that we have a just transition and make sure that, over the next 20 years, we have good green jobs for people to move into and transition into so that they can continue to be in employment. The spring budget review cut £68.5 million from the net zero budget, due to a lack of demand. Although the number of completions is down, the number of surveys last year was 20 per cent up. Does that not suggest that, rather than a lack of demand, there is a lack of ability to deliver on that demand that is throttling back our delivery against the key and vital funds to deliver net zero in Scotland's buildings and homes? Patrick Harvie, the minister of responsible, is putting together a very ambitious plan in terms of decarbonising buildings and homes in Scotland that has the potential to create thousands and thousands of new jobs across all our communities in Scotland. However, I should highlight the recent research that was published by Skills Development Scotland, working with Warwick University and Strathwyth University, that says that in Scotland we now have up to 100,000 new green jobs in this country. There are other reports that say that Scotland is ahead of the rest of the UK in terms of progress over the creation of green jobs. I think that we are in a good place. There is a lot of work to be done, but there is evidence there that we are creating good green jobs in this country. To ask the Scottish Government what its initial assessment is of any potential impacts that the Windsor framework may have on Scotland's economy. Clearly, the Scottish Government welcomes this framework in terms of its importance to wider relations in Northern Ireland and between the EU and the UK. Some businesses that trade with Northern Ireland may face fewer barriers to trade. That might provide welcome relief for Scotland's world-renowned seed potato industry, for example, which has been harmed so badly by Brexit. However, the framework does not resolve burdensome Brexit barriers for Scotland, while Northern Ireland, of course, will still benefit from being part of the single market. Scotland must get the right to choose her own future that does take us back into the EU with all the benefits that will generate. Many of us for many years have supported the specific needs of Northern Ireland, recognised how precious peace is and the need to restore a functioning democratic assembly at Stormont and welcomed the breakthrough on this issue, which is needed to remedy a problem of the UK Government's own making. Does the minister agree that it would be blinkered to not understand that this will have a knock-on impact on Scotland's economy? Although many of us are of the view that full access to the single market for trade is an unbelievably special position, a prize, as the Prime Minister puts it, are there any short-term measures that the Scottish Government can take to protect Scottish SMEs from the competitive advantage that Northern Ireland now has? The Windsor framework clearly represents a welcome improvement in conditions for the Northern Irish economy, which will now have lower barriers to trade with businesses in Britain. That could benefit the many Scottish businesses trading with Northern Ireland, however, we should not forget that Northern Irish firms will continue to have a competitive advantage over Scottish firms trading with the EU because of their access to the large and lucrative single market that Scotland was forcibly removed from. That is just another of the many consequences of Brexit, the only solution to which is for Scotland to rejoin the EU as an independent nation. The Scottish Government continues to provide support to our businesses as is in focus on delivering our 10-year export growth strategy, a trading nation, which remains firmly focused on the recovery and growth of Scotland's exports through values-based trade and our trading relationships with the EU remain central both now and in Scotland's future. May I indulge your patients again and the minister's patient? This is the first formal occasion in the chamber since John Swinney intimated his intention to step down as Deputy First Minister that I have had the opportunity to wish him well in the future. Whether in education or in finance over a very long period of time, I have certainly enjoyed our feisty exchanges in this chamber, even if we have seldom agreed on anything. Does the minister, in relation to the Windsor agreement, at least acknowledge that one of the benefits is a much-improved working relationship between the UK Government and the EU, which is something that his colleague Mr Swinney has often called for? As briefly as possible, minister. Yes, indeed that is the case and I think that I have made clear my answer that we welcome the agreement. Clearly it remains the case that there are still restrictions and fewer, but there are still some restrictions with trade to Northern Ireland. Of course, as the Prime Minister himself said, it puts Northern Ireland in a very advantageous position with regard to having a foot in both the UK and EU markets. It is a position that we believe is a competitive disadvantage of Scotland and it is something that Scotland should be able to realise as well. Thank you Presiding Officer. I would like to ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the fourth national planning framework since its adoption on 30 February 2023. Presiding Officer, I was delighted to adopt NPA 4 on 13 February. It is now part of the development plan and will be influential in all planning decisions. In just a short time, good progress has already been made on key actions from the delivery programme and I have published a letter outlining transitional arrangements to support early implementation. I will shortly lay regulations in this Parliament setting out the arrangements for new style local development plans and so complete the reforms of the development planning system. NatureScot has recently published guidance to support application of NPA 4 policy on biodiversity and further guidance, including on 20-minute neighbourhoods and short-term lets, is in preparation. I thank the minister for that answer. NPA 4 could be the key to making Scotland's places more sustainable, livable and productive and it is indeed heartwarming to see progress in the effective delivery of these new policies. As councils begin reviewing their local development plans to align with NPA 4, can the minister outline the new planning system will accelerate Scotland's wellbeing economy? Minister. Our national spatial strategy will support the planning and delivery of productive places where we have a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy. We will actively encourage investment where it is needed most by rebalancing development, playing to the economic strengths and opportunities of each part of Scotland. NPA 4 encourages councils in the preparation of local development plans to allocate a broad range of sites for business and industry, taking into account local economic strategies and priorities. That also supports broader objectives of delivering a low-carbon and net-zero economic recovery and supporting community wealth and Scotland's wellbeing economy. I will lay regulations in the Parliament shortly, which will set the arrangements for preparation of a new generation of place-focused local development plans, which we will support with guidance on how councils can deliver on the ambitions in NPA 4 through their own plans. I would like to ask the minister if planning advice note 2011 and associated technical advice note 2011 on noise will be updated as part of the fourth national planning framework, and if so, will those take the World Health Organization noise recommendations into consideration? With some substantial changes being made through the reform of our planning system, including a new policy framework in NPA 4, I recognise that there will be some discrepancies in existing planning guidance and advice as a result. There will remain aspects of existing guidance that will still be useful for reference through the new planning system and policy approach, and over time we will review the historic advice as appropriate. To ask the Scottish Government what the cost of the public purse will be of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in 2023-24? The latest published data shows that the total estimated payment cost of private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts is £1.46 billion in 23-24 and £1.41 billion in the year before that. There is an increase of around £50 million. Broken down, we see a cost increase in PFI contracts of £47.6 million in NPD contracts prior to 2010 of £1 million and in NPD hub programme contracts of £1.8 million. The majority of PFI payments are index-linked and rise by inflation each year, while most NPD and hub payments are not, making them less sensitive to inflation. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. While he is standing down from government now, I hope that he will soon return. Does he share my concerns that the 75 remaining PFI and PPP schemes will now cost an additional £770 million to the termination of the contracts, all to be borne by the taxpayer? What does that say about the financial recklessness and short-sightedness of Labour and the Lib Dems who bequeathed those schemes to the people of Scotland 16 years ago and for which taxpayers would continue to pay for many years to come? I sympathise entirely with the point of view and agree with the point of view that Mr Gibson put forward. As Mr Gibson will know, the Government brought to an end the PFI scheme because it simply did not deliver value for money. We introduced more affordable schemes and, as well as stopping the excessive profits, NPD hub payments are largely not index-linked. That is a crucial point, which is at the heart of the question that Mr Gibson puts to me, the folly of linking the PFI schemes to inflation, which benefited those providing the finance, has resulted in an inflationary climate in excessive profits being made, which were baked into the contracts by the Labour and Liberal ministers who approved those contracts. Those are fiscal folly, and I am glad that we have taken the measures that we have taken to reduce the drain that they represent on the public purse if they have been carried on, but we are paying for the legacy of those mistakes. The SNP liked to point the finger at wasted expenditure from decades ago, but its track record on the front is not exactly glowing. What lies behind this question is the relative inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Scottish Government's ability to deliver projects. Therefore, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that financial assessments are carried out to provide best value for the public purse? I have absolutely no idea what that question was about. I was up in Aberdeen this morning. I did not go on the Aberdeen Western peripheral route. Mr Burnett is sitting right behind beside Mr Stewart, the Aberdeen Western peripheral route. I saw the junction, I did not go on that route, I went to Robert Gordon University, beautiful building. Aberdeen Western peripheral route delivered. I came down the road, I came over the Queensferry crossing. Where did that come from? Where on earth did the Queensferry crossing come from? Delivered on time on budget by this Government, and Mr Stewart should thank us for it. Question 5 Stuart McMillan Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what financial support, in addition to local government settlement, will be allocated to Inverclyde Council in 2023-24, and how that compares to 2022-23. At this stage I can confirm that Inverclyde Council will receive £201.9 million to fund vital day-to-day services from the settlement, which is an extra £5.3 million or 2.7% compared to 2022-23. In addition, it will receive its fair share of the undistributed sum of £329.8 million, which includes the extra £223 million announced as part of the stage 3 of the budget bill. All councils, including Inverclyde, will receive additional funding from individual portfolios in year over and above the local government settlement, but it is too early to say how much and how that will compare with the current year. Stuart McMillan I thank the Deputy First Minister for that reply. The Deputy First Minister will be well aware of the economic and social challenges that Inverclyde faces, and with the Clyde green free port bid narrowly missing out on becoming one of the two free ports in Scotland, I would like to ask the Deputy First Minister what additional support the Scottish Government can and will provide to Inverclyde to attract investment to the district, and will the Scottish Government still consider a detailed business case from Inverclyde Council to help address the 40-plus years of managed economic and social decline in my constituency that has suffered from? The Deputy First Minister I understand the disappointment in the Inverclyde area at the unsuccessful bid in relation to the green free ports process, but I assure Mr McMillan that a rigorous and dispassionate process was undertaken by Scottish and United Kingdom Government ministers and officials in that respect. There are a range of measures that are taken forward to support the Inverclyde economy, the Minister for Business, Trade and Tourism and Enterprise continues to engage with the Inverclyde task force. Of course, there is the city region deal for the Glasgow and surrounding area, which delivers substantial investment in the Inverclyde area. Obviously, there is investment that will be taken forward through the Clyde mission, which will have an effect on the Inverclyde area into the bargain. However, I would say to Mr McMillan that the Government will consider any further measures that are suggested by the council as we work to try to improve and strengthen the Inverclyde economy in the foreseeable future. We have three more questions on the order paper. I want to get through all of them, but the responses and indeed the questions need to be slightly briefer, and I will not be able to take any supplementary question number six, Mary McNair. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any cost pressure on council budgets relating to private finance initiatives and public-private partnership contracts. The Government recognises the challenging financial circumstances that local authorities and indeed the entire public sector are currently facing. Those challenges were considered and reflected in the Scottish budget decisions, which will provide local authorities with nearly £13.5 billion in 2023-24, including over £793 million of additional revenue funding. The Scottish Futures Trust continued to work with local public authorities in Scotland to assist in making savings and improving performance across PFI and PPP contracts. Figures provided to me by West Dunbartonshire Council alone will need to pay £15.9 million a year for many years to come. By the end of the contracts, it is estimated to have cost £437 million. Going on double the council's total revenue budget for education, social work and other services, does the First Minister agree with me that the new Labour-imposed funding mechanisms continue to be financially depilitating to councils, draining resources that could be spent elsewhere? Mary McNair makes a very fair point. The financial burden of those contracts is a millstone around a number of local authorities in Scotland. Those contracts are far too expensive, and they have far too much cost over a longer period of time, and the costs are now having a very real effect in eroding the budgets of local authorities at this time. To ask the Scottish Government how much local authority non-domestic rates bills will increase following the revaluation of public sector properties based on rebuild costs using the 1 April 2022 tone date? All properties will be revalued on 1 April 2023, including those in the public sector. Revaluations redistribute the tax base to reflect changes in the market circumstances and ensure fairness for all ratepayers. Many public sector properties are revalued using the contractor's method, taking into account rebuild costs, which have increased since the tone date for the previous revaluation took effect. A revaluation summary report, which will include information broken down by property class, is expected to be published on 23 24 once final values for the revaluation have been made. As I said, the contractor's method for determining rateable value using the real costs of recent new buildings is now passing artificially high values on to councils that are now facing spiralling non-domestic rates bill. In South Lanarkshire, the bill has gone up by £2.9 million. Can the minister ask why the Government is using that method and passing on increased bills to local authorities at an extremely difficult time for them? As a member will be aware, the matter of attrataining RVs for non-domestic properties is for Scottish successors who act independently in accordance with the legislation. With regard to the funding that has been provided to local government this year, it totals £13.5 billion, which is over £700 million above what was indicated in the RSR. Question 8, Alexander Burnett. To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish budget 23 24 will support the economic development and prosperity of the north-east. The Scottish Government is fully committed to supporting the economic development of the north-east. The budget will reflect a continued investment to ensure a just transition to net zero that supports business growth and creates job opportunities. That includes the £500 million just transition fund, £379 million for the Aberdeen city region deal and side package, £180 million for the emerging technologies fund, £100 million for the green jobs fund and £75 million for the energy transition fund. Alexander Burnett. The SNP may claim that it is delivering for communities in the north-east, yet its policies undermine Scottish business. Policies such as the deposit return scheme will bring economic ruin to firms across Scotland, and one small business in my constituency, Essence of Huntley, is facing costs of £20,000 to implement DRS. Why should businesses in the north-east trust this SNP Government when time and time again they proceed with damaging or incompetent policies? I just outline to the member the unprecedented package of support for north-east Scotland provided by the Scottish Government, and on the other issues mentioned by the member, ministers will of course continue to listen to business, but I suggest to the member that he speaks to his own UK Government who is holding back the Acorn carbon capture project, which will create thousands of jobs in his constituency in north-east Scotland, or indeed his Government should match the just transition fund provided by this Government to the north-east Scotland, given that they have taken over £300 billion out of the North Sea. Can they perhaps give some of that back to invest in the north-east of Scotland's future? Thank you very much minister. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause till the front bench is to change before we move on to the next item of business.