 The next item of business is portfolio questions, and the portfolio today is transport net zero and just transition. Again, she remember which to seek to ask a supplementary question. They should press the requested speaker button during the relevant question or enter the letters, RTS and chat function during the relevant question. At question number one, I call Stephen Kerr. To ask the Scottish government what its policy is for the maintenance and rebuilding of road infrastructure? The Scottish Government is committed to maintaining and safely operating our transport assets as set out in the national transport strategy. Our motorway and truck road network is continually inspected with the information used to inform investment decisions. Investment in safely operating and maintaining the network will increase from over £510 million this year to over £668 million in 2425, an increase of 31 per cent, which will be focused on the highest priority safety critical maintenance, as well as supporting our wider commitments on road safety, air quality, climate change adaptation and resilience to severe weather events. Given the fact that spending on roads has reduced from £502 million to £26 million, a reduction of 4,000 per cent in eight years, is it not time for the Scottish Government to be honest and tell the people of Scotland that it does not really care one jot about roads and thinks that the car use is somehow malevolent? That is certainly what the Scottish Green Party, who seems to be in charge of this Government, thinks. How else would the minister explain these catastrophic reductions on spending on roads and will the SNP Green Government ever commit to proper funding road infrastructure? I would explain his comments by the failure of the Conservative Party to even barely do their homework. Read the budget statement, read the budget itself. I have just listened to my answer, which was that there has been a 31 per cent increase in road maintenance. I think that he might be referring to a press release from the Scottish Conservatives, which was actually about major developments, not major road infrastructure, as asked by Mr Kerr, which indicated that they omitted £450 million, which was the work on the A9, which must happen. The cabinet secretary came to the chamber and announced that if they can even get a basic understanding of the difference in budgets between road maintenance, which has been up by 31 per cent, and road project development, then I think that it means that the Conservative Party really has to get back to studying and doing their homework before they come to this chamber. I stop the mentoring. I welcome what I read on page 62 of the budget document as a 41 per cent increase in trunk road critical safety maintenance and infrastructure to £524.7 million. Mr Kerr previously blustered that this budget is about priorities. Has he indicated to the minister that we are here at any other Tory MSP with deep prioritised expenditure in order to fund their myriad demands for additional expending? Is he astonished that Mr Kerr, who clearly needs to go back to school, is not aware that he cannot reduce any figure by more than 100 per cent, so that 4,000 per cent decrease does not exist mathematically, Mr Kerr? I think that this Parliament is very lucky to have a talent-enabled convener of the finance committee that can work his way through the budget document. The Conservative Party and Mr Kerr do not put forward proposals on what they would deep prioritise to fund their myriad of different demands for additional expenditure. The member is quite right to identify the increase in spending for critical safety maintenance and trunk road infrastructure, and that element has increased by 41 per cent, because we have to and must, and this Government always will, keep our roads safe. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to encourage more people to use bus and rail services in their other glowing constituency. We have committed to invest almost £2.5 billion in the coming year to support the public transport network, ensuring a viable alternative to car use and enabling people to make sustainable choices. In South Lanarkshire, more than 140,000 concessionary travel cardholders benefit from free bus travel, making over 565,000 journeys under the schemes in December alone, and Clearhockey's constituents also benefit from a very frequent rail service with six trains per hour to Central Glasgow and the west end, and from lower rail fares due to our peak fares removal pilot, which was extended until June. Getting more people to use public transport will help tackle two of the most significant challenges facing us today, the cost of living crisis and the climate emergency. Through bringing Scotland's rail into public hands and the pilot to scrap, peak rail fares, as well as enabling free bus travel for over 60s people with disability and young people under the age of 22, this SNP Government is taking decisive action to promote public transport usage. Another way that I believe that we could increase the number of people using public transport is through publicly controlled bus services. Can the minister outline how local authorities like South Lanarkshire Council can now do this through new powers given to them within the Transport Scotland Act? The Scottish Government has now delivered all the bus powers within the Transport Scotland Act 2019, which enable local transport authorities to consider all the powers available to them, including partnership working, franchising and local authority run services, which sits alongside their ability to subsidise services. The 2019 act provides an enhanced suite of flexible options for local transport authorities to improve bus services according to their local needs, and it will be for each authority to determine which powers are suitable for their specific areas. The minister knows that it is my view that one of the best ways of getting people on to public transport, including in Rutherglen, is to have lower and simpler fares. Can she tell us if it is still her intention to publish the fair fares review this month? It is my intention to publish the fair fares review as soon as possible. I would hope that it will be in the beginning of next month, but I appreciate his interest. I think that he makes a very important point. The simplification of fares is not just necessarily within the bus arrangements, but across all the different transport modes that are really important. I encourage him that, once it is published, that is the type of discussion and debate that we can have in terms of taking forward policy in this area. To ask the Scottish Government how much has been invested in the trunk road network in the Greenock and Invercly constituency since Amy took over management of the network? Transport Scotland records trunk road maintenance and spend through the operating company's contracts on a whole-route basis. Therefore, figures cannot be disaggregated for exact spend between specific locations. Notwithstanding this, since the start of the Amy South West contract in August 2020 and up to the latest report to the end of September 2023, the Government has invested £25.9 million in the maintenance of the A78 and £77.6 million on the A8 trunk roads through Amy's contract. Those figures cover all aspects of maintenance, including resurfacing work, drainage improvements, road safety measures, maintenance of structures, incident management and winter treatments. Since Amy took over the contract from Scotland Transit in 2020, it is clear to see that there has been additional work taking place in the A78 and A78 in my constituency. Amy took over during the pandemic and had significant challenges. I thank Amy for the work that she has done, but can the minister assure my constituency that Amy will continue to invest in the trunk road network in my constituency and that further improvements to the road surface will take place in the next financial year, including at the Bolson train station? I thank the member for recognising the maintenance efforts of the investment in the Inverclyde area. As he notes, especially during the challenges of the recent pandemic, obviously Transport Scotland works diligently with its operating companies to ensure trunk road maintenance and provide safe use and reliability for those who use that. I can reassure him that in the year 24-25 financial year investment will continue on the A78 and A8 trunk roads. I was in an anticipated programme of improvement works totaling £4.7 million. I will ask officials to ensure that Mr McMillan is updated when the dates are set for certain elements of that. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to realise any potential of national nature reserves to help achieve net zero through their large-scale impact on nature recovery and biodiversity. The purpose of all national nature reserves, NNRs, is to restore and manage Scotland's most important natural areas and to give people the opportunity to enjoy and connect with nature. NNRs are crucial for restoring habitats to contribute to achieving net zero and raising awareness of the effect of climate change on people and nature. The Scottish Government is supporting extensive nature recovery work in our nature reserves, including large-scale peatland restoration, deer management for native woodland regeneration, freshwater restoration and coastal habitat creation. NNRs seek to minimise emissions from their management by using electric vehicles and generating renewable energy. Volunteers have been key to the success of Flanders Moss Nature Reserve as having an improving biodiversity in my constituency. To ask the Government what it considers the role of volunteering to be in achieving net zero and how it intends to support volunteers in this area. The Scottish Government is indebted to the vital contribution volunteers make to biodiversity monitoring, restoration and management, thereby contributing to achieving net zero. There are a range of opportunities on NNRs or through other environmental organisations. At Flanders, volunteers are removing encroaching scrub and installing and repairing dams on the moss to ensure that carbon is locked in the peat and remains there, an important nature-based solution for net zero. Recognising the importance of volunteering, we are funding projects such as the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative, where removing invasive non-native species with the help of volunteers is restoring biodiversity and capturing carbon as those habitats recover. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth, ranked 212 out of 240 on the Biodiversity and Tachness index. It is welcome that statutory nature restoration targets are being considered as part of the natural environment bill. However, does the minister agree that there is a need for a more robust system of holding the Scottish Government to those targets, such as exploring an option for a Scottish environmental court? I thank the member very much for the question. The member is absolutely right on the state of Scotland's nature and the work that we need to do to restore it. I am willing to hear the member's views on the ideas around an environmental court. I know that that is an idea that has been floated, and I am happy to discuss that more. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has made any assessment of the potential impact of its budget on its net zero ambitions. This budget includes a climate change assessment. It highlights that, in 24-25, we are committing £4.7 billion in capital and resource for activities that will have a positive impact on the delivery of our climate change goals. We have also published the taxonomy assessment of the impact of each budget line alongside the budget. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. One of the shared priorities within the Verity House agreement is a commitment to net zero, but the recent budget announcement sees that the regeneration capital grant cut by 27 per cent. Given that 82 per cent of all emissions are within the scope of influence of Scottish local authorities, it is extremely concerning that COSLA is now casting doubt over Scotland's ambitions. Does the cabinet secretary share COSLA's concerns and what discussions have been had about allocating additional capital resources to allow further investment in net zero by Scotland's local authorities? The views of COSLA and our local authorities in pursuit of our climate targets are important to me because we need a whole of society, a whole of government approach to that. The regeneration capital grants are an important part of that, but the clues and the title are capital grants. It is a little ironic to be questioned by Pam Gozel on capital funding when it is in fact her colleagues in the UK Government who have dealt with Scotland, one of the most difficult budgetary challenges that we have had in the devolution era, on account of their financial mismanagement, and in particular, their failure to inflation-proof the capital budget, slashing what is available to Scotland. They have left us, in the worst of all worlds, and this Government will do our very best to protect Scotland from that. I ask the cabinet secretary what initial assessment the Government has made regarding the potential impact of the UK Government's oil and gas bill on Scotland's net zero ambitions. Given that it would appear that no level of funding can prevent Scotland's actions from being undermined by Westminster mandating annual North Sea licence rounds. It was very clearly my view that, instead of licensing ever more new fossil fuel extraction, which the bill the member narrates would propose in doing so on an annual basis, the UK Government should absolutely be supporting a just transition. Alongside other commitments recently from the UK Government, I think that this demonstrates that the Tories are not serious about climate change, nor should I say on supporting Scotland to realise the enormous renewable energy potential that we have. The situation is yet another one that makes clear the perversity of the fact that Scotland has the energy, while Westminster has the power, a situation that cannot be tolerated a moment longer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to make rail travel more affordable and attractive for passengers in mid-Scotland and Fife. There is a range of work underway to improve services in Fife, firstly, due to £160 million investment by the Scottish Government. A new line to Levermouth will be opened, with services commencing in June this year. In addition, the ScotRail peak fares removal pilot has been extended for further three months until June 2024. This initiative not only supports the Government's ambitions for more sustainable travel, but will continue to attract passengers in the member's electoral region and throughout Scotland to rail as it offers passengers significant savings. I thank the minister for that response. While I welcome the extension of the pilot on the removal of peak fares, the upcoming hike in rail fares that will hit passengers once it ends is not so welcome. As the pilot ends, there will be an 8.7 per cent increase in prices, which follows a 4.8 per cent increase less than a year ago. The cost of rail travel is increasingly becoming expensive, and once the pilot ends, the increase will be dramatic. The minister has already said this afternoon that the delayed fares review will be presented to Parliament in the coming weeks. In addition to that, I ask when an assessment of the pilot will be made available and what the Government is doing to prevent people being priced off the railways. On that second point, we will make sure that the evaluation of the pilot will be made available. The disruption to severe weather during the end of 2023 might impact on that. That is why the extension will be helpful in providing a more rounded view over the peace on the fares issues. Our fares are still comparably lower than the rest of the UK. We have postponed the increase from the normal January date to April, and with the extension of peak fares removal, most commuting journeys will remain cheaper until July 2024 and cheaper than July 23, which itself was a below inflation increase following on-fair freezes for season and flex pass tickets. Even with the increase, which affects commuting journeys from July 2024, the return fare will be just over a pound of an increase from the year before for a return from Burnt Island to Edinburgh, which I think demonstrates that we are still trying to ensure that our rail travel is affordable. Can I ask the minister whether there are any early indications of the impact of the peak fare removal pilot for train users in Mid Scotland and Fife? Whether she can say what the most frequented trains are in the region and what savings are patterns of the routes had as a result of the action taken by the SNP-led Scottish Government? There have been extensive improvements across different areas in the Fife region. I think that between £6 following the fare increase and £7 now are being made per journey for many of those who are travelling longer journeys into commuting to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I am happy to correct those figures if they are not accurate. In terms of the difference that it is making, I want to see the evaluation and reflect on perhaps the disruption that we might see to what would have been a regular return to journeys in that area. However, that investment and that ability to invest and continue to invest in our rail services by this Government not only is allowing our decarbonisation to progress, but it is also ensuring that we have affordable services. I think that the member would reflect that bringing the ScotRail services into public ownership has made a whole variety of different initiatives for the benefit of passengers more realisable. I would like to ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impact on the proposed shin of foot junction on the A9 at Ardder after the announcement that Stuart Milne Homes is going to administration? I was very concerned to hear that Stuart Milne group, one of a consortium of developers delivering a new junction on the A9 trunk road at Ardder, had seized trading. Our thoughts lie with the affected employees and their families at this difficult time, as well as home buyers. This is clearly a developing situation and I have therefore asked officials at Transport Scotland to confirm their understanding of the implications of recent events and how they might impact on delivery of the shin of foot junction. I will respond to Mr Fairlie's question and his subsequent correspondence as soon as possible. Mure Homes and Stuart Milne Homes accepted the section 75 placed upon them, which would have seen them funding on and off ramp at shin of foot on the A9 near Ardder. However, after building half the site, they put in a subsequent application, which was rejected by the local authority, which would have seen them constructing off ramp only. That would push a great deal more traffic through an already extremely congested Ardder, causing very real safety concerns because of a busy section of the A9 with a very dangerous overcarriage way crossing. It is caused a huge amount of upset and fear amongst the local community that a serious accident is going to occur as a result. We are then certainly caused by the Stuart Milne no longer being able to be in a position to carry that work out. Will the minister be prepared to look again at the current proposition and call on the reporter's decision to ensure that the residents are served by a safe on and off junction, which will provide the safest possible solution for the residents of Ardder? As I said in my initial response, I will need to take a more considered view on this issue as it involves planning. In keeping with the majority of appeals dealt with by the planning and environmental appeals division, the case has been delegated to a reporter to make a decision on the minister's behalf. Ministers therefore have no involvement in the process. While Scottish ministers can intervene at any point before a final decision is issued on a planning appeal, the issue of a recall direction is a matter for ministers' discretion, the power used sparingly and normally only in circumstances where a proposal raises the issue of genuine national interest. I understand that the reporter has issued a notice of intention and, as the appeal is still live, it will not be appropriate to make comment on the merits of the proposed development at this stage. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to whether there is a need for a regulatory oversight of companies that install low-emission heating systems and upgrade homes to be more energy efficient. The regulation of consumer protection is reserved to the UK Government, but the Scottish Government recognises the importance of consumers being assured that any work carried out is done to a high standard. Using the microgeneration certification scheme installers and trustmark registered businesses is a requirement of accessing Scottish Government funding, so I encourage anyone considering energy efficiency upgrades to seek expert advice from trusted sources such as the Scottish Government's Home Energy Scotland service. I thank the minister for the exchange of letters with me on this subject, which I really care a lot about, because the minister will be aware that the 1,300 companies that we currently have are only more than 4,000 installers across the UK, so we need to get a lot more in time to come. Last month's citizens advice warned that existing consumer protection is insufficient and could allow rogue traders and scammers to prey on people's good intentions. Do we have many examples of that? I am notwithstanding what the minister said that this is a matter for the Westminster Parliament, but does he agree with the citizens advice that the absence of minimum legal standards for all heat pump installations means that there will continue to be a potential risk to consumers if there is not a single accreditation scheme for all the installers in the net zero market? Citizens advice and indeed Pauline McNeill are right to draw attention to this. We are concerned about the risk that people would encounter, the kind of installers that she is drawing attention to. We do have to be clear about the things that this Government can do and the things that this Government can't do but must put pressure on the UK Government to act. In terms of what we can do, more than a year ago we published the heat and building supply chain delivery plan and since then we have been working actively to take forward the work under that plan to make sure that we have the skilled capacity, the high quality skilled capacity across Scotland that we need. If we are going to see the acceleration of both the energy efficiency and the zero emission heating systems that the country needs to see, we make the MCS and the trust mark requirements part of the Scottish Government funding package. It may be that Pauline McNeill has colleagues who might come into ministerial office down south at some point later this year and I think that the burden may fall on them to do some of the work that the current UK Government has failed to do. According to responses that have received from the Scottish Government, they currently do not record or track the number of businesses operating in the energy efficiency sector or what certifications they hold. How does the minister believe that it is possible to effectively support the growth of this sector and ensure that homeowners are protected from falling victim to cowboy contractors without gathering this kind of basic information? I think that, rather than Pauline McNeill's initial question, some of that relates to the consumer protection responsibilities. This is about the regulation of businesses that Brian Whittle is asking about. That falls under consumer protection. It falls under the responsibility of the UK Government. It may be that he would like this Parliament and this Government to take responsibility for more of the powers that are currently reserved, and I think that we would do rather a better job than has been done by the current UK Government, which is ripping up climate commitments left, right and centre at the moment. In the past, some properties in Shetland where energy efficiency measures have been installed by certified non-local contractors have been on the receiving end of shoddy workmanship, with little comeback for the householder once the non-local contractor has left the aisles. Meanwhile, local contractors, often small businesses, cannot compete for this work because they say that the timing cost of certification is too high. It is vital that there are reputable installers carrying out this type of work, so how can the Scottish Government help to ensure smaller businesses can access that important certification? This is an extremely important aspect, not only in relation to Shetland, but there are other rural and island communities around Scotland where the kind of experience that Beatrice Wishart has described has taken place. There has been a recent consultation in relation to the MCS, the microgeneration certification scheme, and a relaunched version of that is due to be in place later this year. I think that by summer this year that scheme, which is not under the control of the Scottish Government, but we are pleased to see progress there. I think that one of the things that they are intending to do is remove and reduce some of the barriers to certification that exist. I hope that we will be able to update Beatrice Wishart and other interested members on that activity, although, as I say, it is not within the direct control of the Scottish Government. That concludes portfolio questions on transport net zero and just transition. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front bench teams to change positions should they so wish.