 Ydyn nhw'n gweithio i ymwyllt y glasedd yng nghwylfaen i gan ymdegol, ac yn y cwestiwn nrhyw nrhyw nrhyw un, rwy'n gweld Douglas Ross. Ynglynch gyda chi, ydych chi i ddweud o'r populatio am gyfwyl un drwy gynddau i gyrfaenau i amryddol, First Minister, first and foremost, recognise what a disruption that has been caused by the failure of that ferry has been caused by the breakdown of the ferry in question. Nobody in the Government, certainly not I as First Minister, am doubting the significant impact on the south-used community. The former transport minister did, of course, visit south-used and north-used. He also spoke to the south-used business impact group as well. We do understand the level, the degree of disruption that has taken place to the community. We will look at what we can do to support business. I have looked previously at the issue of compensation that has been raised in this chamber, rightly so, by a number of MSPs across the political chamber. The reason why we have not, for example, brought forward compensation is because the money that is deducted from CalMac in terms of penalties and fines, what we do is we reinvest that back into the resilience of the network. An example of that, of course, would be the £9 million that has been spent to charter the MV Alfred. That is being funded or partly funded, I should say, by those performance deductions from CalMac of around £1 million a year. I will continue to listen to the calls for how we can support business. As I said, it is not off the table, because we know that the community in south-used do often get affected when there is ferry disruption. I will continue to keep an open mind on that question. CalMac is doing everything that they can in their gift to ensure that they bolster the resilience of the network. I am not sure that the First Minister gras how urgent and critical that is, and he says that he will keep an open mind and recognises the problems in south-used. His answer there was almost verbatim, the answer that he gave to Donald Cameron two weeks ago about the issues affecting islanders on mull. Those endless cancellations are leaving businesses in despair and costing jobs. Let us go back to south-used. One islander, Gary Young, said that the takings in his business were down 70 per cent since the ferry service was cancelled. It is also about more than the damage to the local economy. The disruption goes far further than that. Mr Young said that the ferries are affecting me at my work and my family life. He added that his son has allergies and they are forced to wait for medication to arrive. He gave this stark warning. It has made us question how long we will stay on the island. SNP failures are risk driving people away from island communities. Does the First Minister recognise that it is not only businesses that need compensation but everyone who has had their lives turned upside down by these cancellations? Of course we recognise the disruption cause, not just to businesses but to island communities who depend on lifeline services. We absolutely recognise that impact and that disruption. That is why we are committed to, for example, ensuring that we have six new vessels in the network by the end of the parliamentary term. That is why CalMac has invested £9 million to ensure that we have the MV Alfred charter to again try to bolster that resilience across the network where we can. When we look at the overall statistics in relation to the scheduled sailings that have taken place, we know that only 1 per cent have been cancelled due to technical issues, but clearly that 1 per cent, those cancellations—almost 2,000 cancellations—that take place due to technical issues clearly have a significant impact on the communities and, in this case, in the community of South East. The other promise that we have made and commitment that we have made is that we know that there is often the lock boils deal service that is the one that is impacted and affected because of what is called the root prioritisation matrix. When there is a breakdown, CalMac has that matrix and uses that matrix to determine where, for example, vessel redeployment has to take place. CalMac has acknowledged—I believe that they are visiting South East very shortly to have that discussion with the community—that there is a recognition that it is often the community of South East that is affected. They have promised to review that root prioritisation matrix, and we will, of course, make sure that Parliament is also updated. We recognise the impact on island communities. That is why I have said that we will look to see what more we can do to support the community, including businesses. What we will continue to do is to make sure that we invest in those six new major vessels that will serve Scotland's ferry network by 2026. The First Minister is saying there that CalMac is looking to review it. Actually, her chief executive is going to the island next week to explain the matrix to islanders. He is going to explain why their services have been cut off for an entire month. However, that disruption is not just affecting South East. It is destroying the way of life across many of Scotland's island and coastal communities. We spoke to us shop owner in North Uist, Louise Cook, who told us this. I am really at my wit's end, with all the disruption caused by our ageing ferry fleet and the horrific impact it is having on my business. When I should be increasing staff hours, I have had to cut them drastically. She finished by saying that it is utterly appalling and upsetting. Does the First Minister accept and hear what Louise Cook is saying? Does he understand how many jobs his failures are costing? I am happy to repeat for the third time that, of course, I do, and we do, as a Government, not just understand everything that we can, alongside CalMac, to ensure that there is not that disruption to island communities. I recognise what Louise Cook has said and what others have said. I have read many comments from businesses in South Uist that have been impacted and have been affected. That is why we have taken measures across our term in Government to try to bolster that ferry network. We have bought and deployed an additional vessel in the MV Loch Fesa. We have chartered the MV Arrow to provide additional resilience and capacity. We have commissioned two new vessels for island. We have commissioned two new vessels for the little minch route. We have progressed investment in key ports and harbours and confirmed additional revenue funding for the operation of local authority ferry services. I have already mentioned the fact that CalMac spent £9 million. Some of that money comes from the deductions from CalMac to charter the MV Alfred, which, again, is adding to the resilience of the network. Where there are failings, and clearly there has been a failing in this case, we know that it is often the community of South Uist because of that prioritisation matrix that is, of course, effective. Therefore, I can confirm that that route prioritisation matrix will absolutely be reviewed so that in the future, if there are those unfortunate occasions where there is a breakdown of a ferry, then it is not always that community that has impact. The First Minister got annoyed that he is having to repeat what he said. I am getting annoyed that there are so many cases of so many businesses and so many individuals affected by this throughout our island communities, and the blame lies squarely at the door of the SNP. The failure of Hunza Yousaf's party to build a working ferry network is causing chaos. We spoke to Eileen MacDonald of the Dune Braise hotel on the Isle of Skine. She said this. Enough is enough. The island is in such a terrible way. Hotel bookings are down more than 50%. In 40 years of living on Lewis, there is no vibrancy. We are in despair. We cannot be phobbed off with empty words any longer. The First Minister needs to give Eileen and everyone else in our island communities more than empty words. The SNP's failure to deliver a working ferry network is ruining lives, damaging businesses, costing jobs and driving islanders to despair. So why shouldn't everyone affect it and be compensated for the SNP's mistakes? I am not saying this out of frustration. I am doing this to emphasise and re-emphasise that the Scottish Government absolutely understands the concern of many of the islanders that have been affected, including, of course, the most recent example given by Douglas Ross in the question that he has just asked. We are investing, of course, in the ferry network. I have already given examples of the action that we have taken and, of course, the fact that we have committed investment to and look forward to six new ferries being part of the network up to 2026. In terms of the questions of compensation—and it is a very fair question, of course, for islanders to ask—a very fair question, of course, for Douglas Ross to raise here, too. I have looked at the issue around compensation, but what I would say—and I am happy, of course, to re-examine the issue—that any such scheme would need to be carefully considered because it would then require a very stark choice to be made about those funding priorities because we fund those penalties, the deductions that we take from CalMac, into the resilience of the network, such as, for example, chartering the MV Alfred. So, yes, I completely understand the impact and the effect that this disruption is having on the community of South East. We will continue, Presiding Officer, to engage with the communities of South East and where we can support businesses and livelihoods. I will absolutely explore what more can be done. 2. Anna Sarwar Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board have paid a private company to spy on Louise Lawrence, a grieving widow who lost her husband in the Queen Elizabeth hospital's infection scandal. Why does the First Minister have confidence in the leadership of a board who spy on the families of dead patients? First and foremost, Presiding Officer, I once again give my condolences to Ms Lawrence and Louise Lawrence on the death of Andrews Lawrence. Andrews Lawrence was a colleague that I worked with when I was transport minister in particular, and the work that he did on resilience on the back of a previous question that Anna Sarwar has asked, I have reached out to Louise Lawrence and I believe that we are going to be meeting shortly and I am happy to discuss these issues and any other issues that Louise Lawrence wishes to discuss. I was also disturbed by the reports that were in the newspapers in this regard. My understanding is that, of course, you would expect, and I am sure that Anna Sarwar would expect, that there is a level of media monitoring that does take place by a board, particularly one the size of Greater Glasgow and Clyde. However, having listened to the concerns that have been raised by Louise Lawrence, I think that Glasgow has taken the right action by removing Louise Lawrence from that media monitoring that it has. I would request Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and I have already requested Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to listen compassionately and listen sensitively to those patients that have been impacted and have been affected. I understand that they are reviewing their media monitoring and the communications processes, but they should absolutely the heart of it have patients, particularly those who have been bereaved and those who have raised concerns about those particular issues. Anna Sarwar. What the leadership of this health board is doing is disgusting and is just the latest in a litany of shameful incidents that has seen the leadership of this health board intimidate whistleblowers, engage in a cover-up and frustrate the efforts of grieving families who are looking for justice. Instead of backing patients, Humza Yousaf, as health secretary, decided to take the board out of special measures and empower those responsible. The culture in this board is rotten, so rotten that their director of communications allegedly thought it was acceptable to say of a father fighting for justice for his sick daughter and I quote, he may have won the battle, but he won't win the war. Louise Lawrence, John Cudahy and other families have been treated with contempt, so I ask the First Minister again why does he have confidence in the leadership of this health board? I take the issues that Anna Sarwar raises and has raised to his credit for many years extremely, extremely seriously, and that's why of course we know we have a public inquiry underway, which of course greater Glasgow and Clyde, and indeed the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with. In terms of whistleblowing, let me make it clear, as I have done in my previous role as cabinet secretary for health and social care, that we don't just value the role that our whistleblowing champions place, we believe that their role is absolutely critical. I met, of course, the whistleblowing champion of greater Glasgow in Clyde. In fact, I've met whistleblowing champions of every single health board in the country and I will do, as First Minister, reiterate and emphasise that anybody that has concern, any staff member that has concern in the NHS, they should absolutely raise those issues through the appropriate processes, including, of course, feeling empowered to use the whistleblowing processes that exist. In relation to de-escalation, Anna Sarwar will know that there is a process in place and because the vast overwhelming majority of the oversight recommendations were accepted, then it was right, of course, to de-escalate greater Glasgow and Clyde at the time. So we will judge greater Glasgow and Clyde in terms of how they step up and accept those recommendations and implement them. What we will also do is fully co-operate with the public inquiry in place. Anna Sarwar, the First Minister talks about empowering patients. He's empowering the failed leadership of this health board. Louise Sorrents' husband died at the Queen Elizabeth and she's been fighting for answers for two years. Louise is in the gallery today listening to our exchanges. That's what she's told me earlier. We cannot wait any longer. Empty words just don't cut it. At the end of the day, the people who were in charge when Andrew and others lost their lives are still there. The people who created the problem, who covered up and lied to families, aren't going to be the ones to fix it. How much more does she and other families have to go through? First Minister, you don't need to wait for an inquiry to know that spying on families of dead patients is wrong. You just need to look for your conscience. So why won't you finally do the right thing and sack the rotten leadership of this health board so that we can get a fresh start and justice for these families? As I have said in response to Anna Sarwar's first question, I will of course look forward to meeting with Louise Sorrents and hearing directly from her in relation to the concerns that she has quite legitimately and rightly raised on a number of occasions. I hear the words that she has expressed to Anna Sarwar, and he has read out on her behalf. I take them with the utmost seriousness. In terms of the case of Andrew Sorrents—again, I am happy to speak to Ms Sorrents in detail about this—Anna Sarwar will be aware that we asked for an external peer review of the NHS Greater Glasgow case by NHS Lothian, and there was a determination made after that case. I have said already that the Greater Glasgow and Clyde will co-operate with the public inquiry, and we will continue to hold Greater Glasgow and Clyde to account. I will repeat and reiterate what I have said time and time again, both as health secretary and now as First Minister. If there are concerns raised by staff, I would expect them to raise those issues without fear or without favour, not just through the appropriate processes but, of course, through whistleblowing where appropriate as well. Of course, I am looking forward to engaging with the Scottish Labour Party in relation to our patient safety commissioner bill, which I know Labour and other parties are engaged with so that we can, of course, enhance the rights of patients not just in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, but right across the country. 3. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful for that reply. We learned this week just how bad the NHS staffing crisis has become. In anticipation of his answer to the question that I am about to ask, I wonder if the First Minister realises just how angry he makes NHS workers when he blames that crisis on the pandemic. It was exploding long before anyone had heard of Covid-19. Scottish Liberal Democrats are today publishing research, which reveals that NHS workers have logged concerns about being short staffed on more than 18,000 occasions in the past five years. Those are the red flags recorded by staff on the health service's official incident reporting system. Those figures soared on his watch. All told, the alarm was sounded 10,000 times in the two years that he was health secretary. Those red flags have tripled in Glasgow, they have tripled in Lothian. It means that patients waiting in pain would dangerously understaffed and NHS workers pushed to breaking points. I ask the First Minister, aren't the royal colleges correct in their belief that, irrespective of the pandemic, neglect by Scottish ministers has left this health service in a terrible state? I do not agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton's characterisation of staffing in the health service. There is no doubt that there are vacancies in the NHS, but if I look at the record of the SNP in government, we have around 29,100 whole-time equivalents working in the NHS. When we first took office, I looked at particular cohorts of staffing, for example medical and dental consultants, a record high, 66 per cent up since 2006. A and E consultants, where we know there is a great level of pressure, more than tripled, 60 per cent more clinical radiologists. In fact, we have higher staffing per head than other parts of the UK as well. In terms of nursing and midwifery, up 13.8 per cent since September 2006. We have a good record on staffing, not only in the numbers of staff, but we have the best-paid staff here in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK. There are challenges, of course. That is why, in the pay deal that I negotiated when I was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, part of that we agreed to work with our trade unions to ensure that we have a nursing and midwifery task force to deal with those issues of recruitment and retention. The final thing that I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is that, of course, there were challenges pre-pandemic, but he cannot ignore the pandemic, which has been the biggest shock that the NHS has faced in its nearly 75-year existence, and there is no doubt at all that when we had multiple waves of the pandemic, that was not just affecting the NHS in terms of the number of people who were having to go to hospital due to Covid or with Covid, but also of course affected staff who would have to isolate at home or stay at home because they were themselves infected with Covid. We will continue to focus on ensuring that we do not just have high-record levels of staffing, historically high levels of staffing in the NHS, but we will also ensure that they continue to be the best-paid anywhere in the UK. To ask the First Minister in light of it being carers week what the Scottish Government is doing to support carers across Scotland. I am very grateful for the opportunity this carers week to thank all of those providing care for their loved ones to recognise the invaluable contribution they make to our communities. It is vital that appropriate support is available and accessible, which is why our recent national carers strategy is driving long-term changes to improve the support for our unpaid carers. We are investing £88 million per year in local carers support and £8 million for voluntary sector short breaks. We are also legislating to establish a right to breaks from carers through the national carers service bill. Our carers allowance supplement provides around £540 additional a year to carers. It is only available in Scotland and our new carers support payment, which will replace carers allowance, will start its roll-out at the end of this year. Carers hold up our society through great expense of their own, so Oxfamon, along with another 63 organisations, is calling for a dedicated new national outcome to fully value and invest in those experiencing care and all of those providing it, as well as a robust set of national indicators to track progress. Will the First Minister give careful consideration to this ask to make care count? Yes, I will. Forgive me, I have not seen that particular request from Oxfam, along with the 55 organisations, but I will take a look straight after the First Minister's questions, but I will give careful consideration to the ask to make care count. I should have done this in response to my first question, but thanks to Karen Adams, who has not just lived experience, but talks very powerfully about caring responsibilities. We know that unpaid carers provide not just an invaluable level of care to their loved ones, but to friends. We know that they also save a lot of money to the NHS and social care in the Government to have to be paying for those care costs. We are committed to doing everything that we can to make sure that we value our carers, not just with warm words and rhetoric, but to make sure that we support them financially through, as I say, the right to breaks. I want to reiterate our commitment to do all that we can to ensure that carers can access the support that they need. The national performance framework is Scotland's wellbeing framework and sets out the country that we all want to see. There is a statutory review of national outcomes on going on the proposal for a new national outcome on care. We will absolutely be considered as a part of that. Yesterday in Parliament, MSPs from across parties heard from unpaid carers about just how challenging their roles can be. Many have no access to respite at all, and some even compromise their own health and wellbeing and medical appointments to provide that care. One of my own constituents talked about how she has had to not go for dental treatment despite being in pain and discomfort because it would take too much time away from our caring responsibilities. Those insights are new, First Minister. Carers tell us again and again about the challenges they face. Whilst the Government did back the failure review recommendations in 2021, we have just not seen the reforms that are so sorely needed. Will the First Minister confirm today that the Government still supports the failure recommendations? If so, when will he instruct the scrapping of non-residential care charges? I will come back to non-residential care charges in just a moment, but just to give an absolute assurance to Paul Sweeney and carers that are listening and watching the exchange, we are committed to doing everything that we can to ensure that those with caring responsibilities know what support is there for them and that they are eligible for. We have provided £8 million for voluntary sector short breaks in 2022-23, an increase of £5 million. We are maintaining that funding at £8 million this year. We are also providing £560,000 this financial year for local carer centres. Many of us have local carer centres in our constituencies and we know what incredible and invaluable support they provide. As I have already referenced in my response to Karen Adam, we are legislating to establish a right to breaks from caring through the national care service bill. I hope to have Paul Sweeney's support in that regard. In relation to non-residential charges, we are absolutely committed to removing charges for all non-residential social care within the lifetime of this Parliament. That was absolutely our commitment to do so. If I look at the Feely review in particular, as Paul Sweeney has mentioned, it recommended undertaking further work to understand the impact on demand as a result of removing charges. We are currently undertaking that work with COSLA and the local authorities to do that. We are undertaking further work and, of course, we will consider the value for money of different options based on that work, particularly in a challenging financial environment. However, our commitment to removing charges for all non-residential social care charges within the life of this Parliament absolutely exists and will do that as soon as we possibly can. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister whether extra resources will be made available to local authorities for additional ranges to help with the reported upcoming tourist influx in rural Scotland. We value the important work that our countryside rangers do. We have already provided a package of up to £3 million to both national parks, NatureScot and Forestry in Land Scotland to support seasonal ranger activity in 2023. That includes running another round of the successful Better Places Fund, which last year supported over 100 local authority and community ranger posts. For this year, recruitment is either well under way or completed for the majority of those posts. That includes those that are employed directly by our public bodies and others supported through the Better Places Fund. That complements our investment, provided through our £80 million rural tourism infrastructure fund, which is helping future-proof popular countryside locations so that they can be enjoyed for generations to come. We have introduced a bill to give councils the power to raise funds through a visitor levy enabling local authorities to invest in practical visitor management solutions. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Scotland, as he says, leads the way in outdoor access rights and walking and tourism, is worth £1.6 billion to the Scottish economy. We have seen a reduction in the amount of money that is being paid from £900,000 from £3.1 million. First Minister, I believe that it must be right that we reinforce success. Will you consider giving extra funds to remote areas across the island that would benefit from rangers and stop dirty camping, which is obviously a major problem? I am grateful to Edward Mountain for not just raising the issue, but for supporting the work that the Scottish Government in partnership with local authorities has taken forward. He will know that the fund that was introduced in 2021 was there to support local authorities following a huge increase in dirty camping as a result of lockdown and reduced international travel opportunities. It was always intended to be a means of temporary support, so a reduction in funding is appropriate as we transition away from that. However, I take on board what Edward Mountain has said. Of course, we will explore what more we can do in this regard. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the position set out by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in its concluding observations on the six and seven reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the legal minimum age of marriage in Scotland. We recognise and pay close attention to the comments made by the UN Committee, while also recognising that, of course, young people in Scotland do acquire a number of important rights at the age of 16. Of course, all marriages and civil partnerships must be entered into with the full consent of both parties, and there is existing legislative provision against forced marriage. We hope that, with the Parliament's approval, protections will also extend, fully extend, to forced civil partnerships later this year. We would want to balance any concerns that 16 and 17-year-olds may need more protection in relation to marriage, with concerns related to removing the current rights that they have. I know that Clare Baker is very aware of that balance. We are gathering views from stakeholders in the minimum age of marriage. We are actively considering our next steps in this area. The UN comments will be taken into account as part of that process. Clare Baker. I thank the First Minister for that response. The UN observations make clear that the prohibition of marriage under the age of 18 is part of ensuring that children aged 16 and 17 receive protection as children in practice, and it strongly recommends that the Scottish Government prohibits all marriages under 18 without exception. I recently met Scottish Women's Aid and the Scottish Government has previously stated that there would have to be a full public consultation before taking any steps to raise the minimum age, either through legislation or being supportive of that. I urge the First Minister to bring forward that consultation so that we can have a public discussion about the appropriate age and take into serious consideration the UN's recommendations. There is a discussion of consultation taking place that is under way. I would be more than welcome Clare Baker's comments on that. It is often the case in this Parliament rightly so that we are pressed when considering these matters to talk to those who are most directly affected and impacted by it. We are making sure that we are talking to children and young people, members of the Scottish Youth Parliament, for example, to gather their views, as well as the views of many others. As I have said, I would welcome Clare Baker's thoughts on the issue in more detail on marriages that involve a young person aged 16 or 17. We know that only around 0.1 per cent of marriages involve a young person of that age. From the national records of Scotland, fewer than 30 people aged 16 or 17 entered into a registered marriage in 2019—obviously, pre-pandemic—and fewer than that during the years of the pandemic. Nonetheless, I recognise the issues that are raised by a number of stakeholders in relation to the concerns around forced marriage. We are undertaking that consultation. If we believe that there is a requirement in terms of the change of the law, then, of course, there would be a full public consultation in that regard. In the meantime, I would be more than happy to hear from Clare Baker on her thoughts on the issue. One of the other observations was that the Scottish Government should expeditiously bring forward the amendments that are necessary to enact the UNCRC incorporation Scotland bill in Scotland. What does the Scottish Government understand by the word expeditiously? I do believe that we should bring this bill forward for reconsideration stage. That is my commitment. I have mentioned that in various public comments that I have made, but most recently the cabinet had the cabinet takeover from children and young people on Tuesday. Quite rightly, members of the Children's Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament pressed us on this matter, too. What I do not want to do is bring forward a bill back for reconsideration stage, only for the referral to go back to the Supreme Court and be back at this stage once again. It is incredibly important that we take just that little bit of time that we are taking in order to continue to work with the UK Government, to continue that engagement with the UK Government to ensure that we have a bill that will be within this devolved competence and will not be challenged again by the UK Government. The very last thing that I would say is that, when we read the detail of the Supreme Court judgment, it requires us to distinguish not just between acts of the Scottish Parliament and acts of the UK Parliament, but also subordinate legislation made under both acts. It takes that time in order to ensure that we have a bill at reconsideration stage that I hope will not just command support as the previous bill did, but will not end up with a referral to the Supreme Court by the UK Government. We move to constituency and general supplementaries. I call Fiona Hyslop. First Minister, there is a family from my constituency who are facing unimaginable heartache as the son they sent to school this week tragically died. I won't speculate on the causes while the authorities are investigating our yet to report, but can the First Minister reassure me that any lessons from this will be shared and will he, as I'm sure we would all want to do, extend his condolences to this grieving family who need privacy, particularly from the media at this painful time and to the wider school community? I associate myself with all the remarks made by my colleague Fiona Hyslop, but this is the worst tragedy. Anybody who is a parent will know that there cannot be a worse fear, a worse nightmare that any parent has than losing a child. I cannot think what the family is going through, but I know that the whole community, including the school community, has been deeply affected. I echo Fiona Hyslop's calls, both in terms of not speculating on what has happened and that there will be an appropriate investigation. Of course, lessons should be learned not just by local authority and educational institutions, but there may be lessons for the Government to consider. Fiona Hyslop's second call is so important. Every parent's worst nightmare, the family, should be able to grieve in privacy and not have any further media intrusion or speculation into what is the most unimaginable tragedy. I once again end by paying my personal and the condolences and respects of the entire Government to the family affected. The First Minister will be aware that the latest adoption barometer, published by Adoption UK, makes for troubling reading, especially for Scotland. Despite warm words in the promise, she states that there is still little confidence among adoptive parents that healthcare and education professionals to understand the need of adoptive children, with only 40 per cent down from 50 per cent, stating that their child's teacher has a good understanding of the needs of care-experienced and adopt children. How will the First Minister ensure that more training and funding is directed towards giving Scotland's adopted children the support that they deserve? I agree with the underlying premise from Rose McCall that there is further for us to go. There is more that we can and should be doing in order to keep our promise to Scotland's care-experienced young people but care-experienced people because we know care-experienced is a lifelong experience for people right across the entirety of their lifetime. I will engage with the adoption barometer. We will continue to engage with care-experienced people directly. We will continue to invest, and I have made a commitment to ensure that we continue to invest to meet our commitments as per the promise. I am happy to write to Rose McCall in more detail at the Minister for Children and Young People on keeping the promise, Natalie Don, to write to Rose McCall with more detail on how we intend to take forward further action to keep that promise. With the clear links to animal welfare, environmental damage and human health concerns over rampant braking control, the only safe method for my constituents in controlling it in some areas is aerial spraying of Argyllum. In light of the urgency timing of the application of the product running out and with no clear indication from the health and safety executive as to what their four nation approach will be, will the First Minister personally intervene now and allow NatureScot to issue the licences that are required to use Argyllox to control braking, given that there is no change to the scientific advice since last year when licences were granted? Will the Scottish Government's position on the authorisation of pesticide products is based very much on the regulation and scientific evidence, which is the emphasis that Jim Fairlie rightly puts on his question, is provided by the Health and Safety Executive and the Independent Expert Committee on Pesticides. HSE, the UK regulator for pesticides, is responsible for assessing emergency authorisation applications on behalf of Governments from across the UK, including the Scottish Government. We have considered and promptly responded to HSE's recommendations on the application for the use of Argyllox during the 2023 season. As the application is for use across the entirety of the UK and to the health and safety executive, it is, of course, for them to communicate the decision to the applicant and it will do so once other UK Governments have responded. This is an established procedure for the determination of emergency application. It is important that we continue to respect that process, therefore NatureScot cannot act until the applicant has been informed of a decision. However, I take seriously what Jim Fairlie says. I will examine whether there is anything further that we can do, but what I would put on record is if other UK Governments in the UK could respond to the health and safety executive that may well allow the health and safety executive to come to a prompt decision. Presiding Officer, plans to build a much-needed new health centre in Ellen have been thrown into doubt as the Scottish Government has advised NHS boards across the country to halt projects that need hollywood cash. Can the First Minister clarify how long this delay will be for and what message does he have for the residents of Ellen who currently have a facility that is full to the brim and not fit for purpose? What hasn't helped the public finances in Scotland, of course, is rampant inflation caused by the actions of his party in Westminster. That is why those cuts in the capital budgets over the years are having an impact on the ground here in Scotland. Of course, we will continue our excellent record in investing in the NHS estate. We will continue to do that in communities right up and down the country, including, of course, in our excellent health centres and our national treatment centres and, indeed, in our refurbishment and maintenance programme of hospitals up and down the country, but it would be helpful if Douglas Lumsden, if he has any influence whatsoever, could tell his UK Government colleges to stop cutting our capital budget. The Royal College of Radiologists paint a bleak picture of staffing pressures affecting cancer services in Scotland. In every cancer centre, treatment has been delayed by staff shortages. The quality of patient care has been compromised. Only 10 per cent of clinical directors think that they have enough staff. The sticking-plaster solution from the SNP is outsourcing to the private sector. 14 million to meet imaging demand, which instead could have employed 139 full-time consultants and 10 million on private scans. The president of the Royal College said, "...there is no luxury of time. Our report shows that, as doctors, we are stretched, stressed and scared for our patients. First Minister, vacancies cause harm to cancer patients." So, exactly, what are you going to do to stop this? We are taking a range of actions, of course, primarily to ensure that we have more oncologists, more of the medical workforce that are able to provide these important services. For example, since 2006, I had already referenced in a previous answer, we have a 60 per cent increase in clinical radiology consultants. We have 97 per cent more consultants on colleges as well, but I recognise that there are vacancies in some parts of the country, particularly shortages of oncology staff. For example, we know the situation in the breast cancer service in Tayside. That is why we have set up a national oncology co-ordination group that is made up of clinical leads and managers at each centre to collaborate so that they can support each other in addressing some of the real-service pressures that are referenced by Jackie Baillie and others. We know, of course, the impact that the pandemic had, particularly when we had to take that incredibly difficult decision to pause cancer screening for a number of months. We have significant pressure on the system. If we look at both the 62 and the 31-day pathway in this latest quarter compared to the previous quarter, more patients have been treated on both those pathways compared to the same time last year. We will continue to invest in the workforce, we will continue to see as many patients as we possibly can, but I do not take away at all from the premise of Jackie Baillie's question, which is right, that we need to do even more to ensure that we are plugging those vacancies and making sure that we give patients the absolute support and treatment that they need and that they deserve. Mark Ruskell. Today, a group of nine animal welfare organisations have teamed up to call for a phase-out of Greyhound racing in Scotland. The industry is on its last legs with just one race track left in Scotland. No dog deserves to be forced into a gambling-led industry with an unacceptable risk of injury and death. Does the First Minister agree that it is now time for Scotland to phase out Greyhound racing once and for all? Of course, I agree that animal welfare should be at the heart of this Government's agenda. I have made that clear in the first 10 weeks that I have been in position. I know that it was a commitment made by my predecessor as well. I am more than happy to look at how we can give effect further to the ask that Mark Ruskell makes. We have a good record when it comes to animal welfare, but I agree that there is further for us to go. I will look at the detail of the request that Mark Ruskell made on our right to injure gorse about our plans. I wonder whether the First Minister can make any comment about the situation at City of Glasgow College, which is proposing compulsory redundancies among staff, while at the same time the staff feel that senior management is top-heavy and overly paid. The Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Veterans did right to college principals just yesterday to reiterate the importance that the Scottish Government places on the use of fair work practices in the college sector. He made it clear that our absolute expectation that every effort should be made in consultation with campus trade unions to protect jobs. I would expect that to include a very carefully considered and appropriate standard of notice period to enable full consultation with staff and trade unions and to create the time and space to exhaust all options of redeployment. Ultimately, it is for each individual college to make these decisions, but the Scottish Government is clear that fair work must be their guiding light. It is in the gift of the Scottish Government to grant the urgent authorisation for emergency use of azulox for the sake of rural livelihoods and public health, or are you content, First Minister, to treat rural workers like second-class citizens? Of course, the reason why there hasn't been that authorisation from the health and safety executive is that other Governments in the UK have not, of course, responded promptly in the way that the Scottish Government has. I would advise the UK Government to make sure that they, of course, appropriately respond to the health and safety executive. As the application is for use across the UK, it is for the health and safety executive to communicate the decision to the applicant. It will do so once the other UK Governments across the UK have responded. That is an established procedure, and it is the one that has been used over many years for the determination of emergency applications. It is important that we continue to respect that process. This week's GMB union has highlighted that almost 800 Scottish ambulance workers have been attacked over the past five years while at work. The figures have reached the highest level since 2017, and that is, of course, concerning. Our ambulance staff are working tirelessly in difficult conditions to save lives and provide care. It is wholly unacceptable that they are subject to such attacks. Does he agree that safe staffing is integral to patient care, and if he does, what actions will he take to reverse this worrying trend? I agree. Of course, Karen Watkins is absolutely right to raise this issue. GMB, of course, and other trade unions are absolutely right to raise this issue. We do have a proud track record of protecting our emergency workers, and I want to put on record my thanks to each and every single one of them. One of them is a tax on our emergency workers. A tax on anybody, of course, is disgraceful, but a tax on our emergency workers, who are there in the case of paramedics, in the case of ambulance staff, is literally saving people's lives. It is simply disgraceful and simply unacceptable. I am more than happy for the cabinet secretary for health and social care. He will undoubtedly meet trade unions as he regularly does, but, particularly with the GMB on this issue, to see if anything further the Scottish Government can do. As I said, we have already brought forward over the years legislation to protect our emergency workers, but if there is more that we can do, Karen Watkins and anybody else should be in no doubt whatsoever. We will take the appropriate action to protect our emergency workers who do a fantastic job on behalf of all of us. I am aware that, under rule 13.1 of standing orders, it is permissible for members to make personal statements conditional upon their agreement and, of course, subject to scheduling by the parliamentary bureau. In the interests of checking that process, that those procedures are being followed correctly, can I ask whether you would allow, if requested, Douglas Ross to make a personal statement, if he asks for one, to allow him to correct the record and to explain why he pursued a misleading line of questioning in last week's session of First Minister's Questions? We know that the Conservatives will oppose virtually any measure on addressing climate change, but during Thursday's session last week, while questioning the First Minister, he attempted to discredit the new low-emission zone in Glasgow. He stated that Homeless Project Scotland was refused an exemption to use a refrigerated van within the restricted area and continued a line of questioning, which heavily implied that the LEZ was condemning the charity to being unable to do the work that it wants to do. Failing to clarify, Glasgow City Council had in fact given an exemption to Homeless Project Scotland so that it would continue its work. Additionally, after First Minister's Questions ended, Douglas Ross proceeded to share his misleading assertion further on social media and, to date, has not removed it. This disingenuous conduct allied to the evidence and appalling toxicity within the Tory group. Exemplified yesterday, by the disgraceful language of Murdo Fraser, in attacking through personal abuse a member of the Parliament, is in my view... Can I just ask members to ensure that we can all hear one another? Even where we may not share the same view, I am sure that all members would agree that we should be able to speak without being shouted down. The disingenuous conduct allied to the evidence and appalling toxicity within the Tory group. Exemplified yesterday, by the disgraceful language of Murdo Fraser, in attempting through personal abuse to abuse a member of the Parliament, is, in my view, by design, tarnishing the reputation of this Parliament. It is perhaps reported today that even Stephen Kerr wants to leave this Parliament to go back to the gentler environment of Westminster. I seek your advice about how we can ensure that Opposition leaders such as Douglas Ross do not knowingly mislead this chamber and whether you can inform the Parliament as to whether Douglas Ross has made any attempt to correct the record or seek your permission to make a statement so that he can explain why he thought that it was acceptable to pursue a misleading line of questions during First Minister's Questions. It is, of course, a matter for any member to make a request regarding a personal statement. No requests have been made. I will, of course, consider any request that any member would wish to make. The Presiding Officer, who is in the chair at any point in time, will determine whether, in all the circumstances, it is their view that the requirement for courtesy respect is being made, and they will decide whether to intervene as they feel necessary. Members, of course, are responsible for the content of their contributions. All members can challenge contributions as normal part of debate, and there are other mechanisms available, too. We expect that debate at times will be robust. We wish it to be as free-flowing as possible, but we will intervene as necessary. Members have an obligation to carry and conduct themselves in the chamber with courtesy and respect. I am aware that the Presiding Officer, who was in the chair yesterday, has had discussions with the members who were involved yesterday. Of course, the integrity and reputation of the Parliament is of the utmost importance to each and every one of us in this chamber. I will suspend briefly to allow the chamber and gallery to clear it before we move on to members' business.