 The next item of business is portfolio questions, and portfolios this week is net zero energy and transport. If a member wishes to request a supplementary, they should press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question or enter the letters RTS in the chat function during the relevant question. I call question number one, Martin Whipfield. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment is made of the potential impact of the retirement of Hunterson B and Tornes on Scotland's CO2 emissions. Modelling undertaken as part of the analysis underpinning the climate change plan and the energy strategy and just transition plan does not show any significant impact to the closure of Hunterson B or Tornes nuclear power stations on Scotland's CO2 emissions. Under this modelling, the reduction in electricity generation from nuclear power plants in Scotland has been and will be compensated for by the vast expansion of low-cost renewables and flexible technologies such as storage but not by fossil fuel plants. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for that answer, and he will of course be aware that Sweden, which like Scotland has deployed both wind and hydro power, has now reversed its nuclear phase-out policy and is planning to build new nuclear stations as part of its robust low-carbon mix. Sweden's power is 40 times cleaner and has the lowest electricity sector carbon emissions of any EU country, so can I press the cabinet secretary to use his influence on whoever should lead the next administration to drop the opposition to nuclear power and build on the current base load that we have? Of course, I can remind the chamber that Scotland took 30 per cent of its power from nuclear energy in 2021, not 97 per cent of the renewables that it has in the past been claimed. Shouldn't Scotland follow the Swedish model for cleaner, reliable and cheaper energy, or alternatively the cabinet secretary is not minded to influence those who will follow the First Minister? How are we going to do this? Our position in terms of traditional fission nuclear power has not changed as set out within the energy strategy, which is out for consultation at present moment, and we have set out very clearly how we will meet our energy needs between now and 2045, which is a ramping-up of renewable energy, plus alongside using new technologies such as carbon capture and other sources of storage, which are all starting to develop and progress here in Scotland, which will provide us with the capacity that we require for our energy needs going forward. I cannot particularly comment on the position that Sweden has taken in these matters, but if the member wants to look at what is happening right here, right now in Scotland, for example, today, at this present time, about over 60 per cent of our electricity is coming from renewable sources, and there are times when it is significantly higher than that. What we want to do is to build in that good progress and to make sure that we get the economic benefits that go along with that. Lord Daemon of the Climate Change Committee said that he welcomed the UK Government's recent commitment to nuclear and its role in helping us to achieve net zero, yet, as we have just heard, the Scottish Government sets its face against this technology and refuses to acknowledge its part in decarbonising Scotland's future. What gives the cabinet secretary such confidence that he and his threadbare energy strategy are right, and that the Climate Change Committee is wrong? There is a considerable amount of research and evidence that underpins our energy strategy, which I am sure the member will recognise. It demonstrates that we are very much blessed here in Scotland with significant natural resources, particularly renewable resources, which will meet our energy needs going forward. However, as colleagues are great advocates of the way in which we should deliver nuclear energy in the future is through small, moderate reactors, which they think are going to be the life-saving change that will provide this base load in the future. The reality is that SMRs do not even have approval and are many years away from even getting technological approval. The fact that they could actually even provide any generation in this decade is highly unlikely in itself. They wedded themselves to a technology that is not even approved for use yet and is likely not to be even delivering any energy in this decade alone, which is why we need to move on with the technologies that are on the market, which meet our climate change needs and will deliver the base load capacity that we require in the future. Nuclear power is costly and leaves a long and toxic legacy behind for future generations to come. Given that nuclear generation costs double the price of offshore wind, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it not only makes environmental sense to focus our investment on truly renewable energy options, but it also makes economic sense as well? Members need to recognise that, when it comes to traditional nuclear generation, it presents serious waste and environmental concerns. The costs that are associated with that have to be built into the price, which consumers then have to pay back over many, many decades, in some cases hundreds of years. That is why, for example, if you look at nuclear power, it is a very poor value for consumers. The Crown Tract for Difference figures show that electricity generated by Hinkley Point C is based at £92.50 per megawatt hour, whereas electricity generated from the latest offshore wind sites is priced at £39.65 per megawatt hour, significantly lower. The problem with having a greater reliance on nuclear energy is that it pushes up customers' prices. It makes it more expensive for them as a result than if you look at what has been invested in the UK. That is exactly what it will do. Not only create the environmental and waste legacy problems that consumers have to pay for, but advocates of it are advocating higher prices for consumers because it is a much more expensive form of electricity to produce. To ask the Scottish Government how it engages with local communities to ensure their transport needs are met. The Scottish Government engages with communities on a variety of different transport matters. I co-chair the national transport strategy delivery board with Councillor McGregor on COSLA, which also co-produced our route map for reduction in car kilometres. The second strategic projects review received 14,000 ideas from stakeholders right across the country, which were refined into the final 45 recommendations. In December, the draft long-term plan for vessels and ports was published and shared with stakeholders, and we will go into public consultation in the coming months. The minister will be aware that it has been announced that the Coronarius crossing will have a further restrictions placed on what is already a restricted service, which is being covered by a 47-year-old reserve vessel because of refit delays to a 23-year-old vessel. This is the route that, even before the latest issues, was at breaking point. As well as the impact on local residents and visitors, any new restrictions would mean significant additional costs for the many businesses that operate locally. This is our crisis. Can the minister advise me what discussions she has had with Highland Council about the latest restrictions and what support the Scottish Government has been able to offer? Given the wider issues that are facing local ferry services in my region, can the minister also advise me when she was first made aware that the reopening of Uekaba would be delayed, whether she was required to sign off that decision and, if so, when she did? I thank the member for his question. He knows that I have engaged with Highland Council on this matter and, of course, directly with the member. Additionally, I have also undertaken to visit and to meet local elected members to see the ferry for myself. Of course, we have engaged with the Highland Council and, in relation to the discussions that are on-going this week, my officials are going to be providing me with further advice later this week. On the point that he asked in relation to Uekaba, I was informed about that development on Wednesday of this week. I was not required as minister to sign off on it as some of the delays there have related to weather impacts, but he will be well versed in the situation at Uekaba. I do believe that the mitigation that we were able to bring to that effect on the local community was a better solution than that was originally planned. However, in relation more broadly to some of the challenges committed to working with the member and the Highland Council in finding a suitable mitigation, recognising some of the challenges presented by the age of the vessel that he cited today. Transport agencies such as Hyal and companies such as Loganair clearly have a key role in ensuring that the voice of local communities is heard. Does the minister agree that both organisations need to listen to Highland communities more attentively than they have in recent days when many lifeline air services have been cancelled for weeks and end? Obviously, as we heard in the chamber earlier this week, the focus for our Government ministers is very much on addressing the underlying issue, which is to settle the Hyal pay dispute. I know how concerning the suspension of services is for communities' impact, and I very much recognise the importance of those routes that I met with Loganair this morning. I asked them to restore services earlier than 1 May should a settlement to Hyal be reached this week. Now ministers have approved a new proposal from Hyal, and it is now sitting with the Hyal Board to negotiate a settlement with the unions as soon as possible. The minister will be aware that I wrote to her earlier this week about Loganair's announcement that the intent to reduce services between Inverness and Ireland airports. For Shetland, the ability to get to the mainland is further reduced because currently one of Serco-Northlake's vessel is on its annual refit, so it is in dry dock. What assessment has the minister made on the reduction of services and Irelanders' transport needs in this situation? I have been assured that Irelanders' needs will be met by the current provision. However, I have yet to have sight of Ms Wishart's correspondence, so I am more than happy to speak to her directly on this matter, recognising the very real impact with the community that she serves. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the continued repair works to the M8 motorway in Glasgow, including its financial implications. The M8 Woodside Viaduct is a vital element of the motorway serving Glasgow in Scotland. Its repairs are extremely complex and are being delivered on an operational motorway that is used by approximately 150,000 vehicles daily. Works to install props at 23 separate locations are programmed for completion for late 2024, when lane restrictions on the M8s can be removed. Temporary works are well under way. The final design costs and programme for the permanent repairs will be informed by a trial repair being undertaken this summer, and officials in the contractor are exploring options to reduce timescales. It is well over a year since the works on the Woodside Viaducts have begun, yet there has been absolutely no consultation with Glaswegians and the cost looks set to surpass the £100 million mark by the time of completion, the biggest infrastructure spend in Glasgow this year. Those temporary repair works might be necessary in the short term, but given our commitment to reducing climate emissions and promoting active and public transport options, can I ask the minister if she will commit today to ensuring that before any new permanent works are commissioned, the Government will undertake a full public consultation exercise that examines the viability of the viaduct and looks at alternative options and international examples for how it may be replaced in the longer term. I thank the member for his question. I have been out to visit and to learn a bit more about the complicated works that are on-going on the M8 at the current time. I remind the member that the decision to restrict traffic lanes at that time was taken for safety reasons because reducing the live traffic loading on the structure was a really key aspect to that management. Demolishing the structure itself in relation to the member's suggestion about alternatives was ruled out, of course, due to some of the impacts that that would have had on local businesses. I think that the member spoke about a lack of consultation. That has not been my experience thus far of the works, but if the member would like to share more detail on that with me, I would be more than happy to take that up with Transport Scotland. Just in relation to the project costs, of course, those will remain under continuous review. The overall repair estimate is not yet available because the design is not yet complete, and that will be informed by the repair trial in the summer of 2023. I fully agree that we should be reducing car miles, and we need a just transition in due course. The M8 is absolutely essential to my constituents and many others, not just in the west of Scotland but beyond. It is important for business, it is important for tourism and it is important for the residents. Can the minister assure us that she is fully committed to the M8? I agree with the sentiment of the member's question. Keeping the M8 in Glasgow operational is really vital to ensure that communities such as those in Mr Mason's constituency can continue to operate. Particularly in the current financial climate, that is quite important. The Government absolutely remains committed to working with the council and met Glasgow City Council on this matter earlier today, on bringing about those more positive environmental changes for the city. I think more broadly in line with our policy to reduce vehicle kilometres travel by 20 per cent by 2030. The council has funding awards of over £43 million to deliver a wide range of active travel projects. Those include, of course, connecting Woodside, and that has seen a 300 per cent increase in cycling and the York Hills cycling village. The Glasgow bus partnership too has been awarded £3.6 million from our bus partnership fund to implement and investigate bus priority in the city region. I know that the local authority is really keen to take some of that work forward at pace. Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local authorities to invest in bus services. New Transport Act powers brought in in June of last year provide local authorities with the powers to run their own bus services. Further legislation on partnerships and franchising is expected by the end of this year to provide further delivery options for local bus services. The Scottish Government allocated £410 million in 2022-23 to support bus services and concessionary travel across Scotland. The bus partnership and the community bus fund are designed to complement those new powers and support local councils investment. Presiding Officer, I have no doubt that the Government recognises the importance of bus services having made the welcome move to give under 22s free bus travel. I am however struggling to find a national strategy to get more people onto buses. Specifically, I suggest that the cost is a barrier for low-income families. We see bus fares capped at £2 a journey in England and in Greater Manchester the mayor has achieved significant investment that means fares are capped and bus usage has increased by 10 per cent over the last few months. What is the plan for Scotland? What is the Government going to do to make bus travel more affordable for low-income families? I think more broadly to the member's point. I think we've discussed this in previous portfolio questions, Presiding Officer. I'm sympathetic to the point that the member makes, particularly in relation to affordability. That's why I reconvened the bus task force last year and we're working with the sector to try and improve affordability because we know that bus is the most affordable form of public transport. I think it's also important to remember when we compare Scotland to other parts of the UK that Scotland's provision of support to the bus sector differs markedly from other parts of the UK. For example, we have the most generous concessory travel scheme in the UK. We invest over £300 million annually to provide free bus travel to over 2 million people in Scotland. That doesn't exist in any other part of the UK in the same way. We also provided over £223 million of emergency funding to support the bus sector throughout the pandemic. More broadly, we've been able to provide additionality in terms of our funding for bus partnership work. The member's point about affordability is a fair one. That's why I'm keen to take that forward with the bus task force and the bus operators who deliver services on the ground. I met with the chief executive of SBT last week in my constituency of Glasgow, Kelvin. One of the primary concerns was the chronic shortage of bus drivers affecting bus operators the length and breadth of the country. Could the minister outline what support it is providing regarding recruitment and retention of bus drivers to alleviate some of the pressures that are faced by bus services and the ones that are experiencing them? I met with SBT myself two weeks ago, and they raised similar challenges with men. As the member will be aware, there is a current shortage of drivers for buses, which is being exacerbated by Brexit, which is preventing people from coming to Scotland from the EU to work freely. We have repeatedly sought a formal role in determining what occupations are in the shortage occupation list for devolved nations. Unfortunately, that has not yet materialised in relation to the UK Government, so bus drivers are not included in the shortage occupation list. I understand that the UK Government will be reviewing that, and we have asked for full involvement in that process. We are also working with operators, as I mentioned in my response to Mr Rowley, and partners right across the public sector to promote the bus sector as a place to work, while recognising that many of the levers remain reserved to the UK Government for the current time. Bus services are on the brink of collapse across Scotland. McGill is planning 13 per cent cuts to services in Renfrewshire and Inverclyde alone. The Government needs to intervene to protect services and cap fares now, but there can be no more blank checks for private operators. There needs to be conditions attached to provide commercial information necessary to take local buses back under public control. We cannot go on this and we cannot afford to wait for action. Labour believes that the Government should provide franchising powers, guidance and devolved resources to local transport authorities to make that happen urgently. What will the minister do now to bring local buses under local control? I understand very much the sentiment of that question. I think that there is a challenge to the Government currently in relation to the way in which we fund the bus sector and how that can be sustainable into the future, given that most operators in Scotland are privately owned. I think that there is a need for greater conditionality. Of course, there is a level of conditionality attached to NSG funding in relation to fares being capped at a certain level. The Transport Act gives operators a number of powers, including bus franchising. There will be secondary legislation coming forward on that later this year. I think that there are great opportunities to work with our operators to that end, and I continue to work with our operators directly through the bus task force. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to introduce free rail travel for companions of deafblind people. I confirmed to Parliament last December that the current fares arrangements for companions accompanying visually impaired NEC plus 1 car holders on rail journeys would be reviewed as part of the Scottish Government's on-going fare fares review, which is being undertaken to ensure that we have a sustainable and integrated approach to public transport fares, one that supports the long-term viability of our public transport system. That review will be published later this year, with the launch of a public consultation on a draft vision for public transport, which will give people the opportunity to shape the future of public transport in Scotland. I thank the minister for that answer. Deafblind Scotland headquarters is in my constituency, and this is the most concerning issue that he raised with me. The cost is prohibitive for blind or partially sighted people to travel on the train because their essential companion has to pay. I understand that it is free in some routes, but presently there is no national standard fare structure for communicators. Does the minister agree that ending geographical inequalities would benefit users and rail staff? I accept the premise of Ms Mackay's question. I alluded to my original answer. I responded to a member's debate on this very topic last year. I accept the points that are made by the member, and I think that Mr Simpson led a member's debate on this last year in a similar vein. The varying level that we have of discounted rail travel provided by local councils in the existing scheme can, of course, lead to a level of confusion for passengers and staff. That is why I have asked my officials in Transport Scotland to consider the details of all that as part of our fair fares review, which I will report later this year. I apologise for being slightly late to the start of this session. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has plans to extend free bus travel to everyone under the age of 26. The Scottish Government's concessionary bus travel schemes are the most generous in the UK, with more than 2 million people across Scotland now eligible for free bus travel. The under-26 concessionary fares review, which was published in September of last year, considered options to extend concessionary travel for those aged under 26. It recognised that extending concessionary travel in this way would have obvious implications in relation to affordability. The Scottish Government has no plans at the current time to extend the concessionary travel scheme further to people under 26. I thank the minister for that answer and say that, given the cost of living crisis that many students in particular are now facing, they do not qualify for the under-22 bus pass, and having met them, they are now struggling to cope financially, as for some of them, getting to college or university or part-time work to can mean that they are paying in the region of £40 to £50 a week as a minimum, and that is just for bus travel. Will she commit to consider the issue further? Talk to NUS Scotland to understand the barriers that many students face, because it is not just paying out now, it is an investment in the future and getting young people to commit to being on public transport for the future, and that can only be good for our bus services and our climate. I am sympathetic to the point that the member raises. I think that she has asked me a number of written parliamentary questions on this matter additionally. More broadly, I am more than happy to meet with NUS on this matter. As I outlined, I think that in my response to Mr Rowley, we do provide significant levels of funding and support to our bus operators in Scotland, who are largely privately owned. It is important that the member reflects on that point, given that this is public money. However, it is also worthwhile to say that every college and university has a discretionary fund, and that is intended to give assistance to students who experience financial difficulties. I encourage the member to engage directly with colleges and universities, perhaps via University Scotland, but each institution ultimately is responsible for deciding which students should receive payments from that fund. There may be an opportunity via that route, but I am more than happy to meet with the member or with NUS on this issue. However, I just highlight the considerable financial support that this Government already provides to the bus sector. For example, it invests £3 million annually to give free bus travel to more than 2 million people. It appears that the Labour Party has been out of power for so long that it has forgotten that really good ideas like that need to be paid for. Does the minister agree that if the Labour Party wants to see progressive entitlements that are extended to more people, it has to get behind the position of this Parliament having all the powers of independence so that it can deliver those good ideas? I very much agree with Mr Fairlie's question. Obviously, as I have mentioned in response to other members, our concessionary travel schemes are making bus travel more affordable. They are helping people to access education, leisure and work. We are enabling children and young people to travel sustainably early on in their lives while cutting transport emissions. That is something that every party in the chamber would welcome. I am very concerned about young people being able to access the free bus travel in rural areas. Bus operators such as Muffet and Williamson are making a decision about whether to buy new buses, and they are concerned that the electric buses will not be able to service rural communities. If they buy a diesel bus, can they be guaranteed that they will be able to use it for the full lifetime of the bus? I thank the member for his question. In relation to more rural operators—I think that he cites Muffet and Williamson, who were, of course, one of the operators that I used when I was at school in Fife many moons ago—this was a challenge in relation to some of our ScotZiv funding at the last funding round. As a result of that, I asked Transport Scotland to adapt the scheme that we had to make it more suitable for smaller rural operators. In the summer of last year, I announced an additional £500,000 through the zero-emission bus market transition scheme to help smaller operators, such as Muffet and Williamson, to access some of our decarbonisation funding. Now, if Muffet and Williamson have not been able to access that, I am more than happy to speak to the member directly and to provide what assistance my officials in Transport Scotland can or I can as transport minister. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will remove its presumption against oil and gas from its draft energy strategy and just transition plan, in the event that it received significant feedback in favour of such a move. Cabinet Secretary. The draft energy strategy and just transition plan is open to public consultation until the 9th of May. We welcome views from a broad spectrum of respondents as possible. At this stage, we are not pre-empting those responses. The draft strategy clearly sets out the oil and gas available for extraction from the waters off the coast of Scotland, is a declining resource in our respective of the climate imperative as an already established mature basin in gradual decline. Planning for a just transition to our net zero energy system and securing alternative employment and economic opportunities for workers is essential. Scotland's energy transformation is therefore urgent and inevitable. David Whitehouse, the chief executive of offshore energies UK, has warned that Scotland will be £6 billion a year poorer by 2030 if the devolved Government press ahead with the draft energy strategy and an acceleration away from oil and gas production. That will have a devastating impact not just to the north-east economy but Scotland as a whole, with less money for the NHS, less money for teachers and less money for the most vulnerable in society. Will the cabinet secretary commit to working with the industry to avoid such a catastrophic damage to our economy? I discussed this very issue with David Whitehouse earlier on this week. Of course, the figure he is referring to is figures that we have set out in our assessment of the mature nature of the north-sea oil basin and the need for a just transition. The figures are not unfamiliar to us. The challenge is in recognising that it is a mature basin and that it will be in decline or is in decline and that we will see jobs being lost as a question in which we ramp up the deployment of renewables in order to support the transition into clean green energy. That is exactly what will set out in our draft energy strategy. I can assure the member that during the course of this consultation period and once we receive all those consultation responses, including, I hope, the member's response to the consultation, given his apparent stated interest in this issue, is that we will take an approach that is informed on the basis of evidence in supporting the approach that we take. I have no doubt that the member will want to set that out in his own submission to the consultation. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front bench teams to change positions you do wish. Thank you.