 The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions and the first portfolio is wellbeing economy, fair work and energy. I would invite members wishing to ask a supplementary as ever to press their request to speak buttons during the relevant questions. I would also ask for brevity in questions as well as in responses with that called question number one, Mercedes Villalba. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the energy skills passport for offshore energy workers. Minister Lawness leader. The energy skills passport project for which we have committed nearly £5 million from the Just Transition Fund reached a key milestone at the end of 2022 in the development of a prototype that will be tested with workers and employees in the next phase. I am pleased that trade unions have been engaging their workforce in the design of the passport solution and unions are representing workers directly as part of the project review group for the passport. The Scottish Government supports delivery of a skills passport that will work for the different offshore energy industry sectors, recognising the cross sector skills of workers and supporting a fair and managed transition. The offshore industries, including wind, have also demonstrated clear support for a solution that works for all and promotes a fairer transition in offshore energy. Mercedes Villalba. I thank the Minister for that response. As she will know, the energy skills passport was due to launch in the first quarter of this year and we are now in May. The unexplained delays are reportedly due to opposition from GWO, the offshore wind standards body. In the meantime, offshore workers are continuing to face barriers to transition. Will the minister use her role and position to intervene and chair a crisis summit that includes Apeto, GWO and the offshore trade unions, the RMT and Unite to resolve the crisis, to end the delay and to give offshore energy workers the certainty that they need to transition? I support the member's call for the offshore skills passport to be delivered in a timely fashion, because, of course, we all want to support workers in a just transition. There is excellent progress being made on this project. As I said in my first answer, the proof of concept and prototype of the skills passport was completed and signed off by union reps in December. We are in the progress of a mapping exercise, the mapping and alignment of standards, which is that big piece of bringing together the standards for multiple offshore sectors into one place. We are currently looking at the mapped equivalent of about 75 per cent of the core crew for an offshore installation, so that work is progressing well. The project is moving into preparations for beta testing of that prototype, with the intention to deliver the skills passport to end users in Q3 of this year. A couple of brief supplementaries for Liam Kerr. I am very grateful. Offshore wind, as mentioned, is a possible transition route for offshore energy workers. Ten years ago, the Government promised to deliver 28,000 jobs in offshore wind by 2021, and it has delivered just over 3,000. What action has the Government taken to examine the reasons that it has failed so badly and ensure that the promise of 28,000 can be delivered? Obviously, we are all very keen for the offshore energy sector to have a just transition away from oil and gas to renewable energy, of which Scotland has so much potential. The creation of the offshore skills passport is a key part of the process, because it removes those barriers from work for workers to make that transfer process between the sectors more simple and efficient, to allow that just transition because it reduces the time and cost that is required for training. It also has the added benefit that the passport tool in use will be giving good visibility of potential career pathways and training needs for desired roles in that sector to help businesses to plan their workforce and to help the workforce plan for the roles that they want. Renewables are an important and growing sector, but there is still some feeling of uncertainty for workers with the desired skills. Equivalent certification can be expensive. What supports available to offshore workers looking to transfer their skills? As I have just outlined, this is the whole purpose of the offshore skills passport, because it means that the different sectors of offshore have agreed to align their standards, and the passport will show which standards the worker can adhere to to allow them to transition and move back and forth between different offshore energy sectors. That is exactly the purpose of the passport. Question 2 has been withdrawn. Question 3, Clare Baker. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the recommendations of the independent review into women and entrepreneurship in Scotland. Thank you. First of all, we welcome the recommendations of Pathways, Anastuure and Mark Logan's review on supporting women in entrepreneurship. The challenge is clear. There remains an unacceptable gap in participation in entrepreneurship. The report offers a clear path to closing that gap and in supporting women to achieve their business ambitions, opening up economic opportunities for women, and contributing to building a fairer, more prosperous wellbeing economy for Scotland. We are assessing and prioritising that report's proposals and preparing our response, which I hope to publish in due course. Thank you. The pathway report was published in February and identified 31 ways to dramatically increase female participation. The First Minister at the time said that the Government responded clickly to those recommendations. Yet, when the First Minister spoke about his Government priorities, he did not mention the review at all, so while the Cabinet Secretary indicates that we can expect a response soon, I would like to know when we can expect a response when the recommendations will be taken forward, including the need for a women's business centre. I thank Claire Baker for that question and her work in the committee, but also on the cross-party group for women in enterprise. We have a huge economic opportunity before us if we can close not just the gender pay gap, the gender employment gap, but also the gender gap that exists in new enterprise being established in Scotland, which is pertinent to that question. Of course, we will respond to that report as quickly as we possibly can. We have also got the commitment to the women's business centre, the female business centre as well, and I am very excited about the opportunity that we have before us if we can realise closing that gap and ensure that we are giving women the opportunity to get on in business. I would like to welcome the minister to her new role. I would like to ask the Scottish Government what its latest engagement has been with the UK Government regarding financial pressures that households in Scotland are facing as a result of energy costs. The disproportionate impact of high energy prices on fuel-poor households across Scotland is something that I am raising as a matter of urgency with the UK Government. Although I am disappointed that the earlier requests from Scottish ministers to meet with the Secretary of State were not answered, I aim to meet with the minister for energy consumers soon to seek action from them on issues, including support for those who have been most affected by the energy bill support scheme ending and the introduction of a much-needed social tariff for energy consumers. According to the OBR, the UK is expected to suffer the biggest fall on living standards since records began in 1950, with real household disposal income expected to fall by 5.7 per cent over 2022-23 and 23-24. Last week, I held an energy summit in Perth where experts from Citizens Advice Bureau, Home Energy Scotland, SCARF and PKC shared information and solutions about how to save money on fuel bills and the cost of living pressures. What else can the Scottish Government do to press the UK Government to relieve the pressures that its economic risk management has introduced for far too many of my constituents? I thank Jim Fairlie for that supplementary question, and I commend him for the work that he is doing to help his constituents. As I said, we have called repeatedly for action from the UK Government, including ahead of the spring budget review, but a real difference could have been made, but it failed to deliver. In addition to the meeting that I hope to have with the UK Minister for Energy Consumers, I am going to be progressing work in delivering as a result the Scottish Government energy summits last year. I intend to give us and our partners in Scotland a stronger combined voice, which we will continue to use to challenge the UK Government on a need for more action to support most in need. I recommend that Mr Fairlie indeed all MSPs sign post any constituents that have a real difficulty in paying their bills to advice direct Scotland who are administering the Scottish Government's home heating support and whose offices I visited yesterday. We have tripled our fuel insecurity fund, but, as Mr Fairlie leads to, the core cost that is affecting families needs to be tackled by the UK Government to have the powers to make a real difference in this area. A couple of supplementaries briefly first. Has the Scottish Government discussed the issue of the potential of a UK windfall tax, given the unprecedented energy profits being made, and the Scottish Government's own plans for its energy company that it was proposing to establish? Will that be on the agenda with the UK Minister? We need to accelerate plans to invest in energy-efficient homes in Scotland to eradicate fuel poverty, lower bills, create jobs and deliver on net zero. Wouldn't that be a practical way to get going with it? There are lots of practical things that can be done a lot sooner than some of the things that she mentions from the UK Government, but, given that we only really in the Scottish Government have the powers with regards to helping people to make their homes more energy efficient, that is where we are directing quite a lot of our powers and our funding indeed. We have built the commitment to double the fuel insecurity fund, as I have mentioned, and our winter heating payment replaces the DWP's cold weather payment. A reliable annual £550 payment is helping around £400,000 at low-income individuals with the heating expenses. Quite a lot of the things that she mentions in relation to energy companies, a lot of the powers that are required of that, really do at the moment, sips the UK Government. I have had a meeting last week with UK Minister Andrew Bowie, but some of the issues, some of the very small constitutional issues that might be able to help us to do a lot more in that area, which needs to be devolved to this Parliament. I am Bruce Lee, Willie Rennie. 600,000 homes in Scotland are extreme fuel poverty, but last year, only just over 5,000 households were helped with installation programme by the Government, and this year's warmer homes scheme will not even open again until October. So why is the SNP green government so slow on insulating people's homes? Our national fuel poverty scheme, warmer homes Scotland, is designed to help those living in at risk of fuel poverty. Unfortunately, in the last year or so, a lot of people who were not in fuel poverty have been plunged into fuel poverty, not because of the actions of the Scottish Government, but because of the increase in fuel costs and the energy bills that people have had. Basically, we are plowing in money to mitigate some of the crisis here, but if we had some real action and bring in down the cost of people's fuel in the first place, we would not be in this situation, frankly. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates, the reported closure of Tayside Aviation will have on the financial sustainability of Dundee Airport and the associated Tay cities deal funding. Can I say at the outset that I am very concerned to hear of the job losses at Tayside Aviation and my thoughts are with the workers affected and their families? The Scottish Government remains committed to providing Highlands and Islands Airport limited with sufficient support to maintain operations at all 11 of its airports, including Dundee. Scottish Government officials will discuss implications on the Tay cities region deal with both local partners and the UK Government. The closure of Tayside Aviation will not threaten the future of the airport, but it is vital importance to Dundee and I thank him for that assurance. It will, of course, be of cold comfort to the 22 people who have lost their jobs. What can the minister tell us, and what can he update the Parliament on what they are doing to support the aviation academy for Scotland project, the Tay city deals project, what actions has he taken? Most importantly, today, what assurances can they give to the people who have paid money as students who have lost the future that was in front of them? Have they had discussions with the RAF about the crucial contract that was in place or should have been in place with the aviation academy? Will he meet me to discuss those really important issues? I would be happy to meet the member to discuss those issues and I will certainly check out the point about the RAF. In terms of his further two more general questions, it is important to say that no Scottish Government funding went directly to Tayside Aviation in terms of supporting the students. University students should have of course also been contacted directly by their own universities and Scottish Government officials have been engaging particularly with Middlesex University and the University of Central Lancashire who are delivery partners for the courses to understand what continuancies are in place to support those students who are most affected. In terms of the wider project over the aviation academy, which is part of the local region deal, of course that's a UK project of £8.1 million. So, while the unfortunate business closure that we are talking about in Parliament today will certainly impact on the future development of that project, we want to continue to work with the regional partners to explore alternative viable delivery options. However, as the member confirmed in his own remarks, we are confirming that the funding will not be lost to the region and that the airport will continue to do what we can to support it. I raised the First Minister's questions last week to the issue that Michael Marra referred to about students, many of whom have paid large sums up front in fees in relation to degree courses being partly delivered by Tayside Aviation. There is a huge issue for them in terms of the financial issue, but the other issue is how do they complete their degree courses without that provision of training local to their home base in Scotland. Does the minister have any suggestions as to what alternative provision might be made available to students who are caught in that situation? I recognise the member's interest in the issue and, as indicated in my previous answer, officials are in contact with the relevant universities to look at what alternative plans were put in place and to discuss the wider implications of what has happened. I think that the best thing for me to do is to speak to my colleagues and drop a note to those local members who have an interest in the issue and the implications for the students. We will give you an update as soon as we can. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update and its interim goals of reaching 50 per cent of disabled people in employment by 2023 and 60 per cent in employment by 2030. The latest available ONS annual population survey data indicates that the employment rate for disabled people in Scotland had increased to 50.7 per cent in January to December 2022, from 49.6 per cent the previous year. That means that we have achieved our first interim target of 50 per cent of disabled people being in employment one year early. We are currently on track to achieve the subsequent target of 60 per cent by 2030 and the refreshed fair work action plan that was published last December sets out the further actions that we will take to meet our aim to have the disability employment gap by 2038. I thank the minister for that answer. In ACS clothing, in my constituency, I recognise how standard interview processes very often exclude disabled people from secure jobs right at the outset. The inclusive approach has helped to earn them the disability confident leader accreditation. Can the minister share what further actions the Scottish Government will take to support an increase in the number of employers, practising inclusive and accessible interview processes, with a view to more local employers recognising and benefiting from the talents that disabled people bring to our workplaces? I thank Stephanie Callahan for her question and for the work that she does through the cross-party groups on autism and learning disabilities to support disabled people's lives being made better. I also like to congratulate ACS on the work that they are doing to create an environment in which disabled people can partake in and benefit from inclusive and accessible interviews. The Scottish Government believes that a culture change is required for employers to have the competency and confidence to offer appropriate support to disabled people to access work. To date, we have invested close to £1 million into a public social partnership, which is working to improve the recruitment and retention rates for disabled people by developing and testing different types of support for employers. ACS were supported through the partnership to attain the accreditation that Stephanie Callahan referred to. Last year, we commissioned a disabled people's organisation to deliver a programme of training and development around disability inclusion and, equally, on a test-and-learn basis, in two Fair Start Scotland contract areas. That programme includes development of accessible interviews. Supplementary Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I ask the cabinet secretary, are there plans to produce a refreshed employment action plan for the disability employment gap to reduce that, that addresses the challenges of a post-Covid labour market? I'm certainly happy to look at that. I think that we have to recognise the impact that Covid has had on disabled people entering the employment market. I'd be happy to consider that. I'm also happy to work with Jeremy Balfour and others to ensure that the UK Government is living up to its responsibilities there, too. I'm old enough to remember when the UK Government had a target to have the disability employment gap. Sadly, that is no longer the case. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the regeneration and development of Granton Waterfront. The Scottish Government is represented on the Granton Waterfront Strategic Partnership, which enables regular engagement with the City of Edinburgh Council and partners on the development and delivery of their plans for the regeneration of the Granton Waterfront area. Through the partnership, we are able to discuss ways in which collaborative cross-portfolio support can be provided in the on-going development and delivery of the place-based vision for Granton. That has included investment of over £9 million in the early phases of the development to help to unlock sites and support development of the western villages demonstrator project. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for the funding, committee and engagement so far from the Scottish Government. The regeneration of Granton Waterfront has remarkable further potential to deliver on multiple wellbeing economy and social justice policy objectives. Therefore, in supplementary to what the minister has already said, can the Scottish Government consider how it could further support this nationally significant development project in a holistic way, including how a process might work to allow a multi-year package of government funding to be secured to meet those multiple policy objectives and deliver new housing facilities and opportunities for the benefit of North Edinburgh visitors and our capital city as a whole? I thank the cabinet secretary for his diligence as the local MSP for Edinburgh, Northern and Leith in bringing this important issue to the chamber. The Scottish Government is working with the Granton Waterfront strategic partnership, which is providing support from the range of portfolios involved in delivering this place-based approach to the regeneration of Granton. It includes support and advice on the completion of robust business plans by the partnership to identify the funding going forward that will be required from a range of sources, including private investment. Of course, I would be more than happy to meet Ben Macpherson to discuss those and any further ideas that he might have. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree with me that the UK Government is levelling up funding of over £16 million to restore and reopen the B-listed Granton gas holder is a welcome investment and can act as a catalyst to support the regeneration and redevelopment of Granton and the whole city waterfront. What work is he doing to help with the next set of levelling up funding projects to make sure that every part of Scotland, especially Edinburgh's waterfront, realises that potential? I thank Miles Briggs for that question. Of course, I welcome that funding. Miles Briggs would expect me, of course, to challenge the fact that the levelling up fund has not been as targeted as I think it could be, nor has met the levels of expenditure that matched the predecessor funding that came forward through our membership of the European Union. Of course, I will be looking to meet the UK Government in order to look at the next phase of the levelling up fund, to challenge it to go further, to make sure that the investments meet devolved priorities and to ensure that we are no longer cut out of that decision making process. That concludes portfolio questions on wellbeing, economy, fair work and energy. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio to a live front bench member to change. The next portfolio is finance and parliamentary business. I invite members to ask a supplementary question to press the request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. The usual appeal for brevity in questions and responses. To ask the Scottish Government how much it is allocated from its budget to cover the cost of its challenge of the decision of the UK Secretary of State for Scotland to issue an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. We consider that challenging the UK Government's use of section 35 is the only option for a Government that wants to uphold and defend the democratic will and devolve powers of this Parliament. At this stage, it would be entirely speculative to comment on what the cost of the challenge would be or who would meet them. Any costs incurred by the Scottish Government will be published in due course. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Most of the Scottish public remains opposed to the GRR bill. The wider gender self-id policy also contributed to the downfall of Nicola Sturgeon when she housed a male double rapist in a women's prison. That is a deeply flawed policy whereby many Scots reported the UK Government blockage of the bill itself. It appears that the sole reason that the SNP Government seemed to be sticking with it is to pick a fight with the UK Government alongside keeping the extremist Green Party happy. However, cabinet secretary, is it truly worth wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer's money on something that is likely to be defeated in the courts and that most Scots, including one quarter of SNP voters, oppose? I remind Annie Wells that the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament with support from members of all parties. Of course, the use of section 35 is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament's ability to legislate on devolved matters and risk setting a dangerous constitutional precedent by allowing a veto on this Parliament's democratic decisions. It is absolutely important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the UK Government's section 35 power and its impact on devolution and these matters and the use of the powers should be legally tested in the courts. In terms of taxpayer's money, it is a bit ironic in the week when the head of the UK's debt management office said that the mini budget had cost the UK an eye-watering £74 billion, of which Scotland's share would be over £6 billion, and of course that was through a Government that was supported and enabled by Annie Wells and her colleagues. I will not take any lessons from Annie Wells's or the Tories about the use of taxpayer's money in the eye of this eye-watering amount wasted by the UK Government. Despite the UK Government's claim to have concerns about the bill, it is my understanding that they have as yet refused to engage with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to attempt to resolve them. Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the Conservatives have concerns about the costs of challenging the section 35 order, they could start to address them by pressing their colleagues at Westminster to actually engage with the Scottish Government on the bill rather than undemocratically attempting to block it? Of course that is correct. After the Secretary of State for Scotland made the section 35 order, I met him and proposed that our Governments work together to clarify and seek to address any specific concerns. He refused any further engagement and offered only three options. Dropped the bill, addressed his concerns in an amended bill but with no indication of which areas he would want amended or we could pursue legal action. The legal challenge is not what we wanted to happen with this bill after it was passed, as I said earlier, by an overwhelming majority of this Parliament, but we have been left with absolutely no choice in the matter. Of course, the UK Government could avoid the legal costs by revoking the section 35 order and we would then gladly resume dialogue with it on this issue. To ask the Scottish Government what financial assessment has been made of any impact on the capital budget of delays in delivering infrastructure projects. The Scottish Government continuously reviews the impact that factors such as project delays, inflation repressures and market conditions have on our capital programme to ensure that Scotland's money is being spent in the right places. That is done through the annual budget process and periodically, with our six-monthly reporting on the infrastructure investment plan, the Scottish budget 2324 set out over £6.3 billion of capital spending to support employment and the economy through our large-scale infrastructure plans to move us along the path to net zero carbon emissions and to underpin the provision of quality public services. Jackie Baillie Can I thank the cabinet secretary for her response? We know that the cost of infrastructure projects has risen partly due to inflation, partly due to the availability of materials, partly due to not having enough construction workers. That will lead to cost overruns and delays. We are already seeing that with the national treatment centres and projects like the replacement St Brendan's hospital in Barra, promised by Nicola Sturgeon in 2007 and now completely cancelled. Will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing a list of all capital projects with revised costs and timelines before the start of summer recess? Of course. Jackie Baillie is quite right to point to all the pressures that are coming and impacting on capital budgets and inflation. She mentioned the labour costs and the cost of materials. All that is absolutely the case. In addition to that, we have the combined effects of Covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine. We also have the flat and falling capital grant allocation that Scotland has received from the UK Government, all putting pressure on our capital programme. What we will do is to continue to work through the capital projects, many of which are at different stages. Jackie Baillie will understand that many are well advanced. Some are at the early start. Are there any major changes to the capital programme? Of course, we will inform Parliament about those changes. The cabinet secretary mentioned inflation and I wonder if she can say anything more about that, because it seems that the UK with 10.1 per cent inflation is higher than Italy 8.3, Germany 7.2, France 5.9. What is different about the UK? John Mason makes an important point here. One of the key differences is the issue of Brexit, which has exacerbated all those global factors and economic policies of the UK Government. The many budget that I referred to earlier on, which is costing the UK £74 billion. Those are issues that will impact on our budgets. Building materials were increasingly hard to source last year. Price inflation in the sector peaked at around 25 per cent. Last summer, all those issues will impact on our capital budget. What we will do is to make sure that through the difficult choices that we will inevitably have to make, that we prioritise our capital budget to the clear priorities that have been set out by the Government and the prospectus that was launched by the First Minister, to reiterate what those priorities are. Can I ask, in relation to Jackie Baillie's question, if the cabinet secretary is aware of some of the concerns that have been raised at the finance committee recently by former ministers and former civil servants, that sometimes, when it comes to financial decision making, some of the financial rules have been seen as, I quote, optional? Can I ask that, when she is looking at infrastructure projects, that that matter is addressed as well so that we know clearly what the rules are supposed to be? I look forward to giving evidence on some of those matters, along with the permanent secretary, about decision making, both for ministers and, indeed, in terms of the advice that is given by the civil service. I do not recognise some of the characterisation within Liz Smith's comments. I think that, in my experience, as a minister, for probably more than 15 years now, the decision making is very robust, not least that the advice that we commission and receive is based on the best advice available to ministers. Does that mean that decisions are always correct in the light of things that then occur? Of course, any Government will face issues where decisions are made on the basis of the best available advice at the time, but then changing circumstances thereafter. However, I look forward to getting into more of the detail of this at the committee session. A lack of transparent decision making, a lack of project oversight and no clear understanding of what significant sums of public money have achieved. The Auditor General last year talked about the late ferries. This year, the Government has admitted that the bosses have been paid big bonuses that the Government had no clue about, and a crew has been paid £1.6 million for ferries that can't sail. Has the Government learned a single thing in the last year? Yes, we have, and ministers have, of course, apologised for the delay to the ferries and the distress and difficulties that they caused. The delivery of six new major vessels to Serve Scotland's ferry network by 2026 is, of course, a key priority for this Government. The issue of bonuses has gone over in fine detail. Of course, I wrote to the NZ committee on the latest issue, which the new chair of Ferguson's has been very clear, in terms of the remuneration packages going forward, that bonuses will not feature within those packages, but those legacy bonuses, unfortunately, due to contractual issues, could not be avoided. The issue of the payment of crew for non-sailing vessels, I am happy to write to Willie Rennie with more detail of that. Of course, Transport Scotland continued to work closely with CalMac, CMAL and Ferguson to align the recruitment of crew with vessel deployment plans, but if he wants more information on that, I can make sure that either I write to him or the appropriate minister does. Ask the Scottish Government how much is allocated from its budget to cover any additional costs resulting from the delay in the deposit return scheme. Scotland's deposit return scheme is an industry-led scheme and in line with the principles of producer responsibility, the investments that are made by business to date will be important for the success of the scheme when it launches on 1 March 2024. Accordingly, the Scottish Government has not allocated additional funding to cover industry costs of a delay. A wide range of businesses have welcomed the delay of Scotland's DRS and we, SEPA, Circularity Scotland, are now working intensely so that we are able to launch, to be ready for a launch in March next year. However, that will only be achievable if the UK Government urgently issues an exclusion for the scheme from the Internal Market Act giving business the certainty that they deserve and need. A concerning answer from the minister, the Federation of Independent Retailers have called on the SNP to compensate retailers who have already signed contracts for their reverse vending machines due to the recently announced delay. What is the Government doing to financially support those who have entered into expensive contracts for RVMs, who now may not need to provide RVMs as a result of the changes to the details of the scheme? The contracts that the member is relating to, the member will be aware, are a matter for the contract between Circularity Scotland and the producers. The members can be assured that not only the largest producers are making those contributions in terms of retailers. Retailers are now able to register, and smaller retailers in particular are able to apply for exemption. However, many retailers are keen to be part of the scheme and will attract footfall to their schemes. If the member is concerned about further delay, I urge her colleagues at Westminster to make sure that the exclusion that we need in order to get the scheme up and running is in place as quickly as possible. A multinational company with a dubious environmental record is the sole logistics partner for the deposit return scheme, which should raise concern about the potential to distort competition in the waste management sector. The final business regulatory impact assessment, which was released in late 2021, does not look at it, but we would expect a new assessment to be released whenever the regulations are amended. Will the new assessment examine the logistics contract, and if not, will the minister ask the competition and markets authority to do so? That is a matter that would be better if the minister is responsible for the scheme contact to the member, so I will make sure that she is aware of her question. Question 4 is not lodged. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support responsible and ethical tax collection policies. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of ensuring responsible and ethical tax collection practices are in place and the role of the tax collection agencies in that regard. Robust governance arrangements are in place with HMRC and Revenue Scotland, who both have a statutory function to protect revenue against fraud and tax avoidance. Local authorities are responsible for the collection of council tax and non-domestic rates. The Scottish Government has empowered them to tackle avoidance loopholes and encouraged them to share good practice on data assistance and collection too. The fair work agreement between Scottish ministers and civil service trade unions states in paragraph 28 that the Scottish ministers are committed to publicly run, publicly delivered, public services and are committed against the outsourcing of public services. The outsourcing of tax collection is a test of that commitment. Last year, a new contract was signed by HMRC with private debt collection agencies. Will the Scottish Government, which has a service level agreement with HMRC, rule out the deployment of private debt collection agencies for the collection of Scottish income tax, write into that agreement that income tax compliance in Scotland will be undertaken only by workers in the public sector? Does the minister accept that this is a question of moral responsibility and ethical standards and not simply an operational matter? I thank Mr Leonard for his supplementary point. He raises very significant points, and I know that he does it from a place of genuine moral and ethical concern. As he will appreciate, HMRC operates UK-wide, and with regard to its debt collection practices within Scotland, it will not just be partaking in debt collection practices relating to the devolved aspects of Scottish income tax but also, for example, reserve taxes. One of those reserve taxes is, of course, national insurance, which could potentially be interlinked with regard to debt pertaining to income tax. However, he does raise a lot of points. I am going to take that away and consider what further action can be taken, but I would just reiterate the point to the member that HMRC operates on a UK-wide basis. However, notwithstanding that, I will take those points away and I will be happy to update the member in correspondence in due course. To ask the Scottish Government what impact assessment it has undertaken regarding any reductions to co-funding allocations in its budget for third sector organisations. The Scottish Government grant making is allocated across portfolios to various parts of the third sector to improve a wide range of outcomes. Some Scottish Government funding will be issued through third sector intermediary organisations. Any assessments on funding levels will have been taken by individual policy areas. I wrote to the former cabinet secretary for finance over a month ago with regard to the future of Bridgend farmhouse here in Edinburgh, who has received Scottish Government investing communities funding for the last four years. On February 15, the organisation received notification that it would not continue to receive funding. This is a fantastic organisation, a host of over three social enterprises and a really place where the community can come together. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that Bridgend farmhouse no longer being able to operate would be a significant impact here in the south of the city? Would she agree to visit Bridgend farmhouse and review the core cut to co-funding? First of all, to Miles Briggs, I will look out that correspondence. It is not something that I am familiar with but I will have a look for it. Clearly, those are difficult decisions. The grant funding to third sector organisations is always oversubscribed. It is the same for social enterprise funding. Therefore, the prioritisation around that grant funding is done in a way to align with the clear priorities set out by the Government in relation to reducing poverty, net zero ambitions and sustainable public services. It is not possible to fund every organisation that applies for funding. However, as I said at the beginning, I am happy to have a look at the core correspondence about Bridgend farmhouse and I will write back myself to Miles Briggs once I have managed to do that. Question 7 is not lodged. Question 8 was withdrawn, so that concludes portfolio questions on finance and parliamentary business. If we have a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.