 On 8 October last year, I wrote to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity to ask some simple questions about their proposed deposit return scheme. Despite acknowledging receipt of my letter, there has been no response from the Minister in over three months. Businesses, councils and the public are being kept in the dark over deposit return. The scheme has been delayed twice, the contracts have been hidden from the public and there is no word on start-up costs, risk to public finances or possible job losses at councils. I seek your guidance on how we can ensure ministers respond in a timely manner to provide answers that are very much in the public interest. Mr Golden might be aware that matters relating to ministerial correspondence are not points of order, but in relation to the avenues available to members to scrutinise the Government, there are a range of options of which you will be aware, whether in the chamber during committee meetings and through written questions. It is, of course, a matter for each member to consider which of the options they may wish to use. We will now move on to topical questions. I call it question number one, Willie Rennie. It is to a recent report by Enable Scotland that highlights that over 250 people with learning disabilities are living in NHS Scotland with one woman being there for 60 years. Can I confirm that the minister was able to hear enough of Mr Rennie's question? I think that I got the gist of that, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, it is completely unacceptable for people with learning disabilities and more complex needs to spend long periods of time in hospital. That is why the Scottish Government and COSLA commissioned a working group to look at the issue in March 2020, and the report of the group is expected to be published in the next few weeks. We have already allocated £20 million of funding in 2021 to integration authorities to significantly reduce out-of-area placements and hospitals by 2024. There are recommendations for a framework that directly address enables concerns, a national register and a national panel to support it. That is vital. In addition, the Scottish Government is bringing forward legislation to establish a commissioner for learning disabilities and autism. The role of that commissioner will be to fully protect rights with a range of statutory powers that could include bringing individual cases. Visibility and accountability are critical, and the Government fully intends to move forward and ensure that people with learning disabilities and complex needs have a home in their communities. We need strong partnerships nationally and locally to make that happen without delay. The problem is that the Government has been declaring that this is an urgent priority for years. There were reports in 2018, and the original right to their own home was declared back in the year 2000. Yet 21 years later, 250 people with learning disabilities are stuck in hospital, and the guidance that was required last year has still not been published. I hope that the minister understands that there is quite a lot of frustration out there. Some authorities think that multi-bed units are appropriate, but that is just a new form of institutionalised living. Will the minister rule out multi-bed units? I understand some of the frustration that is out there. I have heard that frustration when I have talked to folks with lived experience and people actively involved in the learning, disabled and autism communities. The guidance that is issued on the community change living fund is clear that it should be used to design community-based solutions that negate or limit future hospital use in and out-of-country replacements. We will work closely with HSCPs to ensure that funding is spent in line with the guidance and the contents of the upcoming delayed discharge report when published. The use of the term multi-bed unit is not a good one. We know that people can share homes and thrive well. That happens here in my constituency in Aberdeen central and across Scotland. However, the use of the term multi-bed unit tends to lead me to think, and I am sure that Mr Lee Rennie is of the same view, of an alternative to hospital. That is not what we want here. We want people to have homes in their communities. I agree with Willie Rennie's concerns that he has expressed, but we have seen already this year the unlawful practice of sending elderly patients to locked Scots care homes and units. That has been banned, and NHS Glasgow is specifically being taken to court for that by the Quality and Human Rights Commission. Will the Scottish Government agree to an independent review of all vulnerable individuals living in those facilities? The Scottish Government has gone through the process of a short-life working group on all of that. We will act on the recommendations and ask of enables as we move forward. What we have to ensure, and I agree completely in utter with Mr Briggs, is that, in all of that, we take a person-centred approach looking at people's needs individually and that we put human rights at the very heart of all the work that we do in that regard. As we have already heard, the Nable Scotland report calls for a community first principle, the commissioning of support for all adults and children who have a learning disability in Scotland. The report welcomes the community of living change fund, which has £20 million ascribed to it. However, what enables Scotland has said in the report is that it is not a lot of money for a per-hsqp area and per person, and it has indeed gone to say that it has not always led to really meaningful action for people in communities. Will the minister share evidence of how that fund is being used, and will he commit to further national funding to build the availability of high-quality sustainable support in every community? Presiding Officer, I am more than happy to keep Parliament informed of how that £20 million is being spent. I can assure Parliament that I will be keeping a very close eye on how that resource is being utilised. Of course, as we move forward in order to get that right, we will have to look at further resourcing in the future to ensure that we do our level best for those folks with learning disabilities and more complex needs. Enable Scotland's report highlighted that people with learning disabilities may be placed in inappropriate settings, such as care homes for elderly people. What action can the Scottish Government take to ensure that provision of appropriate residential care for younger people, including those with learning disabilities, is expanded? I do not quite get all of that, but what I would say to Ms Mackay on her final point is that we have to get that right for everyone. We need to listen to individuals around what their needs are. We know that the needs of young people are often different from older folks, so in order to get that right, we need to ensure that we are listening to young people and their families to ensure that the right provision is in place so that folks can lead as free and independent lives as possible. Question 2, Jim Fairlie. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions that has had with Oval Energy regarding its reported decision to reduce its workforce by 1,700 employees. Concerned to learn of Oval Energy's plans to reduce its workforce by 1,700, across the UK, and the implications that they may have for staff in Scotland following reports that they plan to close sites in Perth, Cumbernauld and Dunferlin. That will be a very anxious time for Oval's employees, their families and the local areas. I saw an urgent meeting with the company and will speak tomorrow to Adrian Letts, the CEO of Oval's retail energy business, where I will seek clarity on the potential impact on Scotland. The Scottish Enterprise is also in contact with Oval and will work with it to look at ways of mitigating the impact on Scottish jobs. Should job losses happen, we will provide support of affected employees through our initiative for responding to redundancy situations, the partnership action for continuing employment, paced. You will no doubt be aware about how concerning this news is for people right across the country. At Perth's site alone, in my constituency, there are some 700 employees who have no idea what their employment status is going forward. As you have just pointed out, Oval plans to cut two offices in Edinburgh, one in Dunfermline and one in Cumbernauld. The strength of feeling towards this announcement is going to be felt by members right across this chamber. Does the minister agree with me that those announcements are not in keeping with what senior management at Oval told employees and politicians when they bought over the SSC retail arm? And what support will the Scottish Government provide to the employees impacted by this decision? I do absolutely share the members' concerns about the situation as it is unfolding across various sites in Scotland. I know that Jamie Hepburn MSP and Stuart Macdonald MP have already met with Oval with regard to the situation unfolding in Cumbernauld. When I meet Oval tomorrow, I shall make these very points to understand the rationale behind their decisions and how that squares with previous statements that they have made with regard to the importance of the Scottish sites to their operation. As indicated to the member previously, Scottish Enterprise and PACE are ready to be engaged with the workforce to offer support to them if the situation emerges wherever a job is done. Those things do take place. When Oval agreed to acquire SSC energy services, the Oval chief executive and founder Stephen Fitzpatrick said, as quoted on their company's own website, that SSC and Oval are a great fit. They share our values on sustainability and serving customers. They have built an excellent team that I am really looking forward to working with. Now that we see them systematically and rapidly dismantling that excellent team, does that mean that the values of SSC and Oval means that their workforce is dispensable? Is the minister as disappointed as I am at this decision? Yes, I am very disappointed by the decision and when I meet with Oval to see clarification on their change in position and why they have a different attitude now than they did previously. I shall work to understand the rationale behind the decision, because, on the surface of it, it does not look to be the right decision for the employees, for their communities or indeed for Oval energy, and walking away as they are from such a valued workforce. I shall endeavour to find out as much information I can from the company tomorrow to impress on the importance of the situation and to encourage them to review the decision and take alternative measures. There is real anger in Perth on the move by Oval, which, just two years ago, when it took over SSC's retail arm, said that it was committed to maintaining a presence in the city. Along with my colleague Liz Smith, I am due to be meeting Oval later this week, the minister said that he is seeing them tomorrow. Will he explore with Oval the extent to which existing staff might be able to continue in their jobs working remotely and from home if they are not able to relocate to Glasgow or some other place where Oval is maintaining a presence? I will impress on the company tomorrow when I meet with Oval, as I said, the importance of those jobs to local communities and to understand the commercial logic for making those decisions and exploring other alternatives to keeping those jobs in place as they are at the moment while meeting the company's requirements. I shall also explore the situation with regard to the options for work from home for employees. The situation that we are in now with changes in working patterns may be a very realistic and practical possibility. I shall question the company on the extent to which it has considered that option and are able to implement that for employees in birth and other affected locations. This is not the first time that Oval has broken promises to its staff with hundreds laid off in the past. Can we expect companies who contravene the Government's fair work agenda to face any penalties as a consequence of their actions? What support can he bring forward through the Tay Cities deal to ensure that there are new opportunities and support for workers in the months ahead, as was achieved with the closure of Michelin and the support given to workers during that job loss? We will be able to look at all those possibilities with regard to the fair work agenda that the Scottish Government takes up seriously and increasingly so. This morning, I met the Scottish Government's fair work convention on its plans to move the agenda forward and how the Scottish Government can support it. That is something that we, just with all employers in Scotland, have the opportunity to make them aware of our position with regard to fair work. Regarding the specifics of the city region deal, it is something that can be explored. Clearly, there are other priorities that are already identified for the resources that are being deployed there, but I am happy to speak with the relevant people and the relevant minister and others to discuss what the possibilities are with regard to opportunities that may be created as a consequence of the deployment of the funds from the city region deal. That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 2849, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 2849 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed.