 The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. I remind members that questions 2 and 6 are grouped together, and therefore I'll take supplementaries on these questions once both have been answered. Members wishing to request a supplementary, should press the request to speak button or indicate, so in the chat function by entering the letters RTS during the relevant question. I call question number 1 Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers hydrogen as an alternative to natural gas to be a viable solution to decarbonising heat in holes. Minister Patrick Harvie. Across the wider economy, we expect hydrogen to play an important role in achieving net zero ambitions, particularly in sectors that are otherwise hard to decarbonise. While it's possible that hydrogen may play some role in reducing emissions from heating buildings in Scotland, we do not expect that to be a central role. If demonstration safety trials prove successful, blending of hydrogen and conversion and repurposing of some parts of the network to carry 100 per cent hydrogen might take place. However, those are at present decisions for the UK Government and we urge them to make these decisions soon. Liam Kerr. I thank the minister for that answer. On the very trials that he mentions, the H100 project, which aims to showcase hydrogen as a green alternative to natural gas, has failed to entice enough leaving-mouth residents to meet its target of 300 households. That is despite offering residents £1,000 free hydrogen appliances and promising the same bills as gas. I am sure that the minister will agree that only through the effective trials of new technologies can we ascertain if they can truly help our journey to net zero. What has the minister done in response to those reports and what action will he take to ensure that the possibilities of hydrogen as an alternative to gas are fully explored? We are working with the operator that is taking forward that trial and we will continue to liaise with them in response to the reports that have been cited. However, I would come back to my first answer. We are very clear that hydrogen, while it may play some role in decarbonising emissions from heating buildings, is not likely to play a central role. In particular, in the context of rising demand for export, which we anticipate, and a significant demand for green hydrogen from other industries that do not have ready alternatives to decarbonise, we think that the promise of hydrogen tomorrow must not stop us from taking action now with technologies such as heat pumps and heat networks that are much more likely to play a central role. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how many drinks producers have registered with Circularity Scotland for the new deposit return scheme. The window for drinks producers to register with Circularity Scotland for the new DRS opened this week. The Scottish Government does not hold information on producer registrations but the DRS regulations require that SIPA, as the independent regulator, maintain and publish a list of all currently registered producers. The first version of the list will be published in March 2023. I thank the minister for that answer. That was the first scheme of its kind in the UK and one of the most environmentally ambitious in Europe. However, some businesses in my constituency have expressed concerns related to the costs involved at a time when the Westminster-imposed cost of living crisis is hitting hard. Can the minister advise on the action that the Scottish Government has taken to support businesses, especially the smaller businesses, that will help to address their concerns? As the DRS is a scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland is responsible for implementation. However, the Scottish Government has been engaging very closely with industry to ensure that a pragmatic and efficient approach is taken to implementation. For example, in direct response to feedback from businesses, we have now published updated guidance and support for those applying for exemption for DRS. That has, in turn, allowed CLS to revise the producer fees. This week, the announced producer fees will be 8 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent lower respectively for glass, pet plastic and metal containers. Day 1 payments for producers using UK-wide barcodes will also be reduced by two thirds. I know that that is something that has been welcomed particularly by the British Beer and Pub Association. We have also recently announced proposals to bring forward amendments to the DRS regulations so that only the largest supermarkets will be obliged to provide online take-back. All others will be exempted and that will be a phased approach even for the large supermarkets. All of that is as communicated by Lorna Slater to the net zero committee this week. There are all examples of how the Scottish Government is determined to proceed with this environmentally ambitious scheme but equally to implement it in a pragmatic way. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the open letter signed by over 500 businesses asking for the deposit return scheme to be delayed beyond next summer. The Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity responded directly to the letter that the member referred to and did so addressing concerns raised and confirming that there will be no change to the launch date of the scheme. The Scottish Government, as I said in my previous answer to Marie McNair, continues to engage very closely with industry to ensure a pragmatic and efficient approach to implementation. I mentioned the updated guidance for retailers. I mentioned the suggested and intended changes to online take-back. We are keen to make this work. We know the benefits that come from DRS. We know that we are committed to August next year in terms of implementation, and we will work with industry and SIPA to achieve that. The smaller drinks producers are especially worried. Earlier this week, I met the own label company based here in Edinburgh, who incidentally produced whisky for this Parliament. They want the deposit return scheme to succeed but face costs and administration that threaten their very survival. With only nine supposed months until launch, small firms are still waiting key information. Further still, the Scottish Government's own review team has found that a fully functioning and compliant deposit return scheme cannot be an operation for the revised August 2023 schedule. Despite the minister stating that no change in the launch date is planned, does the minister not see that it makes sense to let the large firms who can manage the launch first resolve the problems and then launch for smaller firms? Should August 2023 be the timeline that businesses are working towards? I recognise a lot of what the member has narrated there. In fact, some of the actions that the Government has taken over the piece, and in particular this week, as communicated to the next committee, have been about recognising that much of the actions should fall on the larger bodies initially. That is inherent in the fact that small exemption is available for certain small outlets and those changes that have been made to or will be made to our regulations as regards to online take-back. That is about targeting that measure, particularly at large supermarkets and even that on a phased approach. All of that demonstrates how the Government is listening. We are committed to August 2023 because that poses the opportunity to collect 90 per cent of containers for recycling, to reduce the £46 million of public money that is currently spent on cleaning up litter, and to reduce CO2 emissions to the equivalent of taking 83,000 cars off the road in the UK. That is why we must pursue that, but, as I have said, we will do it in a pragmatic way working with industry. I have a number of supplementaries that I will only be able to take some of them. I call Maurice Golden, who is joining us remotely. Today it was confirmed that key parts of the flagship deposit return scheme are being scaled back ahead of the launch. The Scottish Government's approach to the secretive and scandal-hit scheme is shocking. It turns out that the SNP and Greens already knew that a fully functioning scheme was not possible by next August. They were told seven months ago in a report that they kept secret until forced into this climb down. Given that other countries have launched successful schemes, far more quickly, which are cheaper for producers, can the Minister confirm how many people with experience of those systems the scheme administrator employs and whether the gateway reviews routinely interview international DRS experts? The member mentioned the Scottish Government commission's regular reviews on major projects to ensure that issues are identified and addressed. That is something that those of us who are accustomed to delivery are very used to. The gateway review was undertaken more than six months ago, and since then significant progress has been made by industry. That was reflected in the improved position of the assurance of action report in October. Although the most recent report confirms that there are challenges to overcome, it demonstrates an improving picture and confirms the feasibility of the scheme being implemented and in place for August 2023. Maurice Golden mentions successful schemes elsewhere that have been implemented more quickly. Perhaps he should have a word with his colleagues in the UK Government, whose scheme is not as ambitious as ours and will not be implemented as quickly. In the meantime, we will get on with delivering the scheme. The minister has to recognise that confidence in the sector, in the Government's ability to deliver the scheme, is rock bottom. We are really concerned about the expense, the date and whether it can still be done by August. What steps is the minister going to take to build that confidence back up and convince him that, far from being pragmatic and efficient, the scheme is expensive and that it is intransigent with the date? What will the minister do to improve confidence so that the scheme can actually work? I said in response to Maurice Golden that our most recent report confirms that there are still challenges—nobody is denying that—but it demonstrates an improving picture and confirms the feasibility of the scheme being in place for August 2023. In the meantime, we are committed to continuing to work with industry, continuing to work with SEPA and working with Circularity Scotland, not least in the ways that I have narrated a number of times this afternoon, as Ms Slater set out to the net zero committee this week. That is updated guidance supporting those who are seeking an exemption in whole to the scheme, in turn a substantial reduction in producer fees, some 8 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent reductions across the different container types and a reduction in day one fees that have been welcomed by the British beer and pub association. That significant commitment by Lorna Slater to look again at online take-back, to restrict it to the largest supermarkets only and to introduce that on a phased basis. I will take a brief supplementary from Colin Smyth and a brief answer, please, Minister. Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The gateway report is utterly dammin and it makes clear that a fully functioning scheme cannot be introduced by the date of August 2023. If the minister is saying that a scheme will be introduced on that date, will it be fully functioning and, if not, what will be missing from the original proposals? Presiding Officer, in the spirit of brevity, I will just reiterate our most recent report. It confirms that there are challenges to be overcome but it demonstrates an improving picture and it confirms the feasibility of a scheme being in place for August 2023. 3. Ross McColl To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the delivery of its heat in building strategy, including decarbonising homes and workplaces. We published a report in October setting out our progress against the heat in buildings strategy. Since the strategy's publication, we published our heat network delivery plan and legislation requiring all local authorities to produce a local heat and energy efficiency strategy in 2023. We have also introduced a grant to replace the cashback element of Home Energy Scotland loans for homeowners. In 2023, we intend to publish a consultation on our proposals for a heat in buildings bill and launch our public engagement strategy to raise awareness and support among the public for this vital transition. 3. Ross McColl I thank the minister for that response. The latest report from the UK Climate Change Committee issued a stark warning about the Scottish Government's plans to deliver low-carbon heating sources and improve the energy efficiency of buildings, calling them wholly inadequate. This criticism comes at a time when we also learned that the Scottish Government has cut £45 million from the heat in buildings capital grant scheme. Given the cost of the Scottish Government's heat in buildings strategy is estimated to be in the region of £33 billion, what impact does the minister think that the cuts will have on the delivery of sustainable homes and will they be reversed in today's budget? We continue to invest substantially in the energy interventions that we make, including everything under the heat in buildings agenda. The climate change plan update that was published in 2020 is acknowledged, including by the Government, that we have to go further and faster as we develop the new climate change plan that is currently under development. In fact, that acknowledgement that is welcome in the climate change committee report demonstrates the need for us to bring the added ambition that we are bringing to the area. I refer the member to the comments from the British Energy Efficiency Federation who said in response to our work that, if my advice to Whitehall is simple, whether you take the high road or the low road, you would best be copying Scotland's initiatives. I have previously raised with the minister the option of making modification to rule 3 of the Tenements Act 2004 to the effect that factors and those living in multi-owner properties, which describes 95 per cent of the housing in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, be empowered to introduce energy-saving measures such as electric vehicle charging points, solar panels or anything else that is proven to have an impact on CO2 emissions with the agreement of a simple majority of tenants. Such a simple modification would produce immediate economic and environmental benefits and there are no obvious downsides to any further delay. Would the minister give serious consideration to including this very simple modification as a matter of urgency? I am not sure if I need to declare an interest as a resident in one of the tenements in Cocab Stewart's constituency, but we are, of course, aware that stakeholders have raised very valid concerns about the existing tenant management scheme set out in the Tenement Scotland Act. The independently chaired tenement short-life working group has been empowered to consider that issue. As the member mentions, we await their recommendations. I am sure that Cocab Stewart will be keen to discuss that with the Government once those are available. To meet our ambitious heat and building strategy and housing to 2040, we need communal work in tenements to be carried out in a way that is fair and effective. We will fully consider therefore any changes to the TMS before making legislative change. In question 4, Rhoda Grant, who joins us remotely. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is to meet the bold off-gasked during the cost-of-living crisis. Minister Patrick Harvie, I am sure that you managed to at least get the first question in writing before you, because obviously it was a wee bit unclear. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do have a note of the first question that the Scottish Government recognises that households, especially in rural and island areas, who rely on unregulated fuels for their heating instead of gas, need both general and targeted assistance. Although the powers to support off-gasked grid consumers as regard the price that they pay for higher alternative fuels are primarily reserved, we are taking every action that we can with the powers that are available to us, including doubling the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million for the financial year 2022-23 and the new £1.4 million island cost crisis emergency fund. Those who live off-gasked grid can only access air source heat pumps through government schemes for boiler replacement. The cost of retrofitting insulation makes this unaffordable for the average household, far less those in fuel poverty. Can I ask if the Scottish Government will reconsider funding by LPG boilers on the Home Energy Scotland grants for those properties, which will help in reaching net zero while ensuring that households have adequate heating systems? I have to say that the current economic circumstances justify the Government's intention to move away from fossil fuels, because overreliance on fossil fuels is part of the problem for the very consumers that Rhoda Grant is rightly concerned about, but the Government has also recently made much more flexible and attractive the package of grants and loans that are available to people, including a specific rural and island uplift for both the energy efficiency and the zero emission heating elements of that package of grants and loans. I encourage the member to make her constituents aware and to visit the Home Energy Scotland website for further information. According to heating oil supply ricks, the average price of heating oil has seen a year-on-year increase of 60.5 per cent in 2022. As households relying on alternative fuels to heat their homes, such as heating oil and LPG, will only receive a £1 of £200 payment as part of the alternative fuel payment scheme? Does the minister share my concern that the UK Minister of State for Energy and Climate recently informed the Scottish Parliament's net zero energy and transport committee that the UK Government has no plans to regulate the alternative fuel market in the UK? I agree and share those concerns. The UK Government's unwillingness to regulate the alternative fuel market will lead to more Scottish households, especially in rural and island communities, at risk of moving into fuel poverty. It is also very concerning that the alternative fuel payment, which does not come close to meeting the rising costs of alternative fuels over recent months, has not even reached consumers yet, despite being announced four months ago. I say again that the whole issue highlights once again our overreliance on fossil fuels and why it remains absolutely essential that we accelerate our transition to zero carbon alternatives for heating our homes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. What pressure can the Scottish Government continue to place on the UK Government to help to support off-grid customers such as those in my constituency where the market is less competitive? Will the Scottish Government join Liberal Democrats in calling for a price cap on heating oil to support households through the cost of living crisis and longer term? As I have said in relation to the first question, we call on the UK Government to regulate the alternative fuels market and to ensure that the support that is being committed to is made available to people. Given our experience over a number of years of trying to get the UK Government to sit down and talk to us about the added flexibility that we could build in through schemes such as Eco and their refusal to negotiate and to find better ways of doing that, I think that we all share the member's frustration at the UK Government's unwillingness to work with us on those matters. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it is giving to reinstating rail services to the northeast, in particular to Peterhead and Fraserborough in the Bampshire and Bucking Coast constituency. An option for a new rail line between Aberdeen, Ellen and Onwards to Peterhead and Fraserborough was assessed as part of the second strategic transport projects review, but did not form part of the final strategic transport investment recommendations. However, I welcome the news that the campaign for northeast rail recently secured just transition funding to conduct a regional study into the viability of a passenger and freight railway connecting Ellen, Peterhead, St Fergus and Fraserborough. The Scottish Government has an exemplary record in this area having reconnected numerous communities throughout the country to the rail network. The campaign for northeast rail is something that I am extremely passionate about and it has my full support, but I recognise the challenges the current situation of extreme financial pressures poses to such a project. The campaign is currently working on getting its feasibility study up and running. What advice might the minister give to the group to ensure that it can develop as strong as a business case as possible? I travelled to Dice with the member and other local MSPs back in June to see for myself the difference extending the rail line back to the northeast would make. It is worth reflecting that the historic peaching proposals cut off many of Scotland's communities from direct access to rail, including leaving mouth in my constituency, which will be reconnected to the network for the first time in over 50 years in 2024. Because of leaving mouth, I recognise the role of rail campaigners and admire their commitment to improving transport connections in their local communities. That successful, collaborative approach that was undertaken in relation to leaving mouth rail is a really good exemplar of how to build community support. I worked very closely with the group as constituency MSP and the member may wish to meet with the campaign group to understand the approach taken to build that momentum for leaving zero way. CNER, of course, is a very well-established campaign group when they are working with local businesses, community organisations and local schools. That will be absolutely vital to developing the strong business case that the member speaks to. The Aberdeen-Till-Laudence-Kirk multimodal corridor study, published earlier this year by Nestran, shows a significant public interest in reopening two local train stations in my northeast constituency. That would be a very positive development for the local economy, environment and our emerging renewables sector. I ask the minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to those findings given the commitment in the recently announced STRP2 delivery plan to enhance choice and access to public transport. I know that transport Scotland officials are meeting Nestran's and their consultants this afternoon as part of that on-going appraisal process to inform their study, which has been funded through the local rail development fund. We will, of course, carefully consider the emerging outcomes of that appraisal in the context of our wider investment in Scotland's rail network. The strategic priorities for rail, as are set out in the recently published STRP2, are to decarbonise the remainder of the network, increase the amount of freight travelling by rail and improve connectivity between our major cities. To ask the Scottish Government when the final recommendations of the strategic transport projects reviewed to will be published. The final recommendations of STRP2 were published along with the full suite of reports on 8 December. That represents a key milestone for transport planning in Scotland, setting out a 20-year framework for capital investment to drive the change that we need to reach our ambitious and essential net zero goals. A delivery plan to provide further insight on prioritisation of the STRP2 recommendations will follow next year when there is more clarity and greater certainty on the available capital budget and fiscal policy for the coming year. To say that the final STRP2 report was a damp squib would be an understatement, it was simply another regurgitation of what we already knew. Presiding Officer, over 70 Crockettford residents attended a meeting this week to voice their fears and anger that no firm commitment has yet been given to road improvements, particularly in light of the recent accident that could have caused multiple fatalities. Could the cabinet secretary let the good people of Crockettford and Spring home know when the construction of the bypasses are likely to begin? I know that, despite the ministers' rhetoric to the country, positive talks are on-going between the Scottish and the UK Government to find a way for the UK to invest in the A75, a route of significant importance to the whole of the UK. Will the cabinet secretary also commit to exploring the option of installing average speed cameras to protect the communities from speeding drivers as a matter of urgency? In relation to the point, I recognise the concerns that his constituents have given the recent incident and, of course, my thoughts with those who were involved in that incident. It is important that we take forward this process through the STRP2 mechanism, which has identified improvements to the A75 that builds upon the South West Scotland transport corridor study, which was carried out. It identifies a number of areas where improvements need to be made. As we have already stated, that will also have to fit into our capital spending programme, and the recognition that capital investment in public sector infrastructure is under considerable pressure for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons that is under significant pressure is because the UK Government has not kept up with the inflation that it has caused in capital budgets, which means that, effectively, our capital budgets are cut. The member is keen to make sure that there is greater investment into our trunk road network here in Scotland. He should be speaking to his bosses in London, asking them for more capital budget in order to allow us to do exactly that. I assure the member that, if the UK Government, after they have finished wrecking the economy and pushing up inflation, get round to providing additional capital expenditure to invest in our trunk road network, the Scottish Government will be able to do exactly that across the whole of Scotland. The STRP2 makes commitments to re-line the roads around Springham and Crockettford and Reline and Cookerbridge. I know that it is a huge issue for us in the south-west of Scotland. It is a welcome commitment, but can I press the minister whether it is likely that the Scottish Government's budget will include funding for the re-recommendations to be carried out in the coming financial year? When can we see shovels in the ground? The challenge with those has been the delayed budget that we had from the UK Government, which has a direct impact on our ability to manage our own budget. That is why what we had intended to do was to publish a delivery plan alongside the STRP2, but because of the economic and political chaos that was created by the UK Government, it has delayed that whole process, which means that it will be next year before we can then publish the delivery plan that goes alongside that. Within that delivery plan, it will set out the areas where investment will be made, including areas such as the A75 and other parts of the trunk road network across Scotland. I can squeeze in question number eight if I could please get brief questions and answers to match. Question number eight, Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero Energy and Transport last met with CalMac representatives. As I sit within my portfolio as Minister for Transport, I meet with CalMac representatives on a regular basis, and I will next meet with them this afternoon. Can I thank the Transport Minister for that answer? I can also put on record my thanks to CalMac staff who are working incredibly hard in the toughest of conditions with creaking infrastructure, but through no fault of their own, CalMac staff are employed through a very peculiar arrangement as part of a subsidiary on Guernsey. Given that this is a Scottish-owned company, funded by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Taxpayer and subsidised by the Scottish Taxpayer, which operates in Scotland, it is not entirely clear the reasons for such peculiar arrangements. In her response, can the Transport Secretary please enlighten the chamber why CalMac staff are employed through a company in Guernsey and what financial benefit it may be receiving from doing so? I thank the member for his question in relation to the arrangements. I think that these are historic arrangements, but with regard to the specifics of the governance arrangements, he will be aware that earlier this year I published Project Neptune in September of this year, and a few weeks ago members from across the chamber met with Ernst and Young to talk to some of the changes being put forward through that report. Of course, that report looks at restructuring potentially the governance arrangements in place at the current time, and I am sure that going forward the issues that the member has raised will be addressed in due consultation with local communities to ensure that they receive the services that they should expect to receive in relation to the delivery of CalMac's vessels in the west coast of Scotland. Thank you minister. That concludes portfolio questions on net zero energy and transport. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next slide of business. Thank you. Good afternoon. Members will be aware of my response to points of order raised at the end of First Minister's questions regarding information related to this afternoon's budget statement. As I said at that point, I would investigate this matter. I have been unable to conclude my deliberations in the time available and I am therefore suspending this meeting for 30 minutes. Thank you.