 Ymgyrch gwaith ymlaen nhw gwybod maes i'r dyfodol yma yma? Mae'r cyfrifod ar y cyfrifod ddag, Douglas Ross. Mae'r cyfrifod ar y cyfrifod mwyndig maes i'r gyfrifod yma, maes i'r cyfrifod mwy yma i'r cyfrifod mwy fwy o oferiwr. Mae'n gweithio gyda'r cyfrifod aethau mwy yn Lannachiaf, a mae'n gweithio i'r cyfrifod mwy o rhan o'r cyfrifod mwy. Mae'n gweithio i'r cyfrifod mwy o rhan o'r cyfrifod for faster private treatment in England. Margaret said this. Cancer kills have left untreated and the Scottish Government is allowing this to happen. We shouldn't have to go to London or elsewhere. First Minister, Margaret is right, isn't she? Margaret is right that nobody should have to feel that the only option is to pay privately to go anywhere else outside of Scotland for cancer treatment. Can I pass on my sympathy to Margaret for what is an unacceptable ordeal that she has had to go through? If I can try to give some context, I know Douglas Ross and indeed others in this chamber and outside of this chamber, I am aware of the significant impact that the Covid pandemic had on our health services right across the UK, including on cancer services. I think that one of the most difficult decisions that this Government had to take during that Covid period was, for example, to have to pause screening, cancer screening for a period of a number of months and we are still dealing with the impacts of that difficult decision. In terms of ovarian cancer more specifically, let me try to offer some assurance if I can in terms of the latest figures, that in Scotland 94.7 per cent of women, so over 9 out of 10, women are receiving their first treatment for ovarian cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat that as per the latest figures. But in those situations where that is not happening or has not happened in the case of Margaret, then I fully accept Douglas Ross' proposition that that's not an acceptable state of affairs. Douglas Ross, the First Minister, as I thought he would, mentions Covid, but they had Covid in England as well, where Margaret got treatment because she could pay £27,000 for that. She went south of the border to get it. The First Minister wanted to offer his reassurance to ovarian cancer sufferers, so let's look at what target ovarian cancer has said. They say that Scotland has one of the worst survival rates in Europe for this cancer. People need urgent treatment to save their lives, but in the SNP-run NHS they wait months. Margaret is worried about what happens if her cancer comes back. She is also worried for people who don't have life savings to pay for treatment. Public Health Scotland statistics show that people from the most deprived areas of Scotland are 74 per cent more likely to die from cancer than those in wealthier areas. What are people meant to do if they get cancer and they can't afford to go out with Scotland for their treatment? The NHS in Scotland will be there to assist and to treat where it possibly can. Unless I misunderstood Douglas Ross and I'm willing to correct the record if I did, I'm understanding that a Margaret's case she went for private treatment in England. Of course, the services in NHS England are also being impacted as have the services in NHS Wales and the services undoubtedly in NHS Scotland. Douglas Ross is absolutely within his right to ask the question around ovarian cancer. I'm more than happy given the time limits that we have in First Minister's questions to write with him in far more detail, but we are taking the issue around ovarian cancer specifically, as he has asked about that, with the utmost seriousness. The Scottish Cancer Network will be establishing a new ovarian cancer clinical network that will ensure equity of access to treatment for all women with ovarian cancer. That is specific to the point that Douglas Ross raises around the inequality that may exist in relation to the accessibility of services. We have also committed £10.5 million to health boards to improve capacity and access to systemic anti-cancer therapy by 2027, with £3 million of additional funding released this year. As I said, there is a lot more that I can say in terms of detail of what we are doing specifically around ovarian cancer, but in the interests of brevity I will write to Douglas Ross with that further detail. I'll welcome that response when it comes and I'll share it with another member of the public who we've spoken to. We spoke to Irene Harthorne from Ayr, and she was told that she needed to wait 12 weeks for ovarian cancer surgery. She told us this morning—and these are Irene's words—I felt powerless. You know that all the time the illness is getting worse and worse. If I had waited, I think I would be dead by now. Her sister paid for her to get treatment in London, but Irene wanted us to ask the First Minister this question. First Minister, why are the resources not in place in Scotland for this kind of treatment that Irene had to go south of the border for? We are investing in our national health services. This year we gave an additional billion pounds to the health service, taking it to £19 billion, so we are not just investing in the health service but, importantly, investing in the people that provide the treatment. It's why we assured that we did everything that we possibly can to ensure that they were paid fairly and that we didn't lose any days on the NHS to industrial action. In terms of staffing, as well under the SNP, there's been an almost 100 per cent increase in consultant oncologists since we took power. We are investing in the individuals in our health service. We are investing in ensuring that there's early detection of cancer as well with a rapid cancer diagnostic services. We are specifically on ovarian cancer, as that's been an issue that's been raised by Douglas Ross. We are seeking to explore what more we can do for faster treatment. I go back to the latest statistics that were published, which I hope provide some assurance, although I accept fully their cold comfort for those who have already had to pay for treatment. To provide some level of reassurance, the latest statistics show that 94.7 per cent—almost 95 per cent—of women are receiving their first treatment for ovarian cancer within 31 days of a decision to treat. We want to consider what more we can do to improve that figure further. Douglas Ross I think that those answers will be so bitterly disappointing for Margaret, Irene and hundreds of others that are so distressed at having to pay so much money to go out with Scotland to get their treatment, but experts are echoing exactly what the patients are telling us. Dr Hume of Cancer Research UK said that the problems in cancer care are fixable if the new cancer strategy is fully funded and implemented now, but the evidence shows that the resources are not in place. An official statistic this week showed that one in four Scottish patients suspected of having cancer do not start their treatment within the 62-day target. A new freedom of information request that we have had answered shows that one patient in NHS Grampian this year has waited 156 days, more than five months, to start chemotherapy. Hamza Yousaf was health secretary for two years and cancer waiting times grew. He is now First Minister. What is he going to do to sort it? As I have referenced, the 31-day cancer stat has improved in terms of the previous quarter, so that is showing, I hope, a journey of recovery that we are absolutely on. We have to accept that recovery will take a number of years. Douglas Ross made a few points. Actually, the number of those that I agree with and he was reading on behalf of those who work in the NHS, is that the cancer strategy, the 10-year strategy that we have published, must be fully funded. We agree. We accept that very premise and that very point. That is why, for example, this year, we have increased our investment in the health service quite substantially and, of course, later this year we will give an update for our budget 24-25, but I accept fully the premise that the strategies that we bring forward must be funded. I also accept the point that the 62-day target must be improved. There is no doubt that that has been impacted and affected by the pandemic, but there frankly were challenges around the 62-day target pre-pandemic too. That is why the cancer plan, the cancer strategy that we have, will seek to target those cancer types that we know that we have traditionally struggled with in relation to the 62-day target. From a Scottish Government perspective, we will continue that record investment in the NHS. We will make sure that our staff are paid fairly and that we continue to have adequate staffing within our health service. Let me give an absolute assurance, not just to Douglas Ross, but to all those who are watching and listening, that the treatment of cancer, early diagnosis and early treatment of cancer, is an absolute number one priority for the Government of Ireland. Cancer remains Scotland's biggest killer. We know that there is a direct link between speed of diagnosis, treatment and survival rates. This week's statistics revealed that one in four cancer patients had faced delays in treatment. That is 1,130 people starting treatment late in the last three months alone. Everyone, a son or daughter, everyone, a loved one, someone loved by a family waiting anxiously. In fact, none of Scotland's health boards met the 62-day standard for starting cancer treatment. Macmillan has warned that staff are stretched to breaking point, and Cancer Research UK called the delays unacceptable. Does the First Minister agree with the experts or has his Government become complacent in the fight against Scotland's biggest killer? We absolutely have not become complacent. I hope that we can demonstrate that through the work that we have done with key stakeholders in relation to the cancer strategy. Douglas Ross and Anasawa are both absolutely right to raise a crucial issue for people right across Scotland. Let me in turn try to give some assurances. We are recovering from a global pandemic. That global pandemic has absolutely had an impact, not just on the health service but of our cancer services. However, if I look at the statistics and the figures, when I look at, for example, the 62-day pathway, we are treating 41.2 per cent more patients on that pathway than we did 10 years ago. If I look at the 31-day pathway for which there has been an improvement, we are treating 19.6 per cent more patients than we did 10 years ago. Therefore, we are seeing more patients. The throughput has increased over the last decade. That is not complacency at all, because there is clearly more to do, particularly around the 62-day pathway. Anasawa also raises the importance of diagnostic waiting times. The latest statistics show an improvement in that regard. We are not complacent. We will continue to invest, and, as I have said already, we will continue to invest in ensuring that we have the adequate staff so that we can get treatment to people as early as they possibly can. Covid started three years ago. This Government has not met the 62-day standard for 11 years, so cut the complacency and cut the excuses. We know that every day every delay risks lives, and we know that cancer deaths are higher than they should be. So far this year, there have been 398 more cancer deaths than experts would have expected—avoidable and unnecessary deaths. This week, it was also revealed that life expectancy in Scotland has dropped again. It has fallen back to a level that has not been seen for more than 10 years. There is no starker indication of failure than that. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to apologise for the lost decade on the SNP's watch? Of course, if people do not get the treatment as quickly as they should or where targets are missed, of course the Government not just apologises, but we have deep regret when that is the case. Of course, Anasawa forgets to mention the fact that what has happened over the last decade is over a decade of Westminster austerity, which we know every single external organisation that has an interest in poverty will tell you that poverty is a clear determinant, is a clear factor of health inequality. We will do our best to try to mitigate the impact of that Westminster austerity. We have put hundreds of millions of pounds from our budgets on the table to protect from that Westminster austerity. On what we are doing in relation to the NHS, I go back to the central point, record investment, ensuring that we pay our staff fairly, hence why there have not been strikes in Scotland where there have been in health services across the UK, including in Wales and in England. We will continue to invest in our staff and ensure that patients get the treatment that they deserve as quickly as they possibly deserve. The First Minister does not need to persuade me on how woeful the UK Tory Government is, but that does not excuse the woeful record of this SNP Government for the last 16 years. Every cancer delay raises the chance of avoidable death, and that is why patients should be diagnosed and start treatment in 62 days. The FOI request has revealed the dire reality for too many patients. Some cancer patients have waited 191 days for diagnosis and treatment. 191 days, a cervical cancer patient waited 417 days, a prostate cancer patient waited 334 days, and there was even a cancer patient that waited 385 days for diagnosis and to start treatment. You cannot blame somebody else for that. That is the SNP's record. Over a year of anxiety before getting the help of those cancer patients needed. So why cannot the First Minister see what many on his own benches can see, that the SNP have lost their way, have got complacent and no longer put the interests of the Scottish people first? That is simply untrue, and that is why, when it comes to who is trusted with the NHS, we tend to leave that verdict to the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland, time and time again, have given that verdict to the SNP, and I can hear Anasawa shouting something about polls. Of course, in most of those polls, if not every single one of them, the SNP continued to lead Labour and continued to lead other political parties, too. The reason for that, after 16 years in Government, is because of our stewardship of vital public services like the NHS. Let me remind Anasawa of a couple of points, because I am not disagreeing with the central premise that neither he nor Douglas Ross have raised that there has to be improvements in the 62-day standard. I agree with that, and I accept that. Obviously, there has undoubtedly been an impact from Covid. However, we have seen an improvement in the 62-day standard compared to the previous quarter, where over seven out of 10 patients are starting treatment within that 62-day standard. It has to be improved, so there is no complacency. The median weight in relation to the 62-day standard was 49 days. We will continue on that journey of recovery. We will continue to invest in our health service, in our staffing, and we will continue to do what we can to ensure that patients, the public, are seen and treated as quickly as they possibly can. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports of widespread contamination at many of Scotland's outdoor swimming sites. I would take some exception to the use of the term widespread. The Scottish Government is committed to improving water quality at bathing waters across Scotland. Recent reporting of those statistics has not interpreted SIPA's bathing water monitoring data correctly. Since we introduced more stringent European standards in 2015, we have worked with SIPA, Scottish Water and key stakeholders to ensure that more bathing waters are classified as good or excellent than ever before, with 98 per cent beating the water quality standards. Scottish Water is working to install monitors on all its sewer outfalls in or near bathing waters to provide near real-time spill data by December of next year. Those actions will help inform bathers and support SIPA and Scottish Water's work to prioritise investment where it will most benefit both our environment and our communities. I am surprised by that answer, First Minister, because the most recent investigations at Lower Largo in Fife, which tells us that it is the most polluted beach in Scotland, breached the regulations on seven occasions so far in 2023, and on three occasions it was 50 times the contamination limit, which is a very serious health hazard. I ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is going to do to increase the frequency of the checks on those beaches. I also ask the First Minister if he is as concerned as I am about the number of community swimming pool closures, which are obviously seen by many families as a safer alternative just now. What I say to Liz Smith is, of course, the situation that she mentions in relation to Lower Largo is, of course, a serious one. My understanding is that there are identified reasons for that potential contamination. I know that it is an issue that Scottish Water and SIPA are looking at very seriously. I am happy to write to Liz Smith and ensure that the appropriate Cabinet Secretary writes to Liz Smith with the detail of what actions are being taken in that specific example. However, I go back to the point on why I took exception to Liz Smith, suggesting that contamination was widespread, is that point that 98 per cent of Scotland's bathing waters currently achieve the bathing water quality standard, with more being rated excellent than ever before. We have good monitoring. We have good quality of water here in Scotland and on specifics of Lower Largo. I am more than happy to write to Liz Smith with the detail. Willie Rennie. I have to say that I am astonished by the answer from the First Minister. It is astonishingly complacent. 50 out of 89 of the most popular beaches in Scotland are beyond safe standards for bathing. That should be an alarm bell for the First Minister. When is he going to implement the proper measurement of all sewage outflows? When, at last, is he going to set legally binding targets to end the sewage dumping? This is an issue that Scottish Water and SIPA take seriously. I have given the answer in previous First Minister's questions about how, for example, that water is being monitored, how the sewage outflows are being monitored in a comprehensive monitoring programme that has cost considerable amounts of public investment, has been under way over the last number of years. Of course, there is action to increase that monitoring over the period to come again, which I am happy to give more detail to Willie Rennie. Nobody is complacent here. I am fully accepting that there are particular instances that must be investigated where there must be action that is taken, but I go back to that point that 98 per cent of the bathing waters currently achieve that quality standard, with more being rated as excellent than ever before. However, on the specifics that Willie Rennie raises, I am more than happy to provide him and furnish him with answers in detail around what further monitoring is expected to take place. I have raised before the issue of sewage contamination in Scotland's water, notably in the water of Leth, in my region. I previously asked the Scottish Government for a meeting, but in August the cabinet secretary advised me that she did not think her meeting would be useful. Will the cabinet secretary now agree to meet with me urgently, considering the clear severity of the issue across Scotland? I am more than happy to consider that meeting and ensure that the cabinet secretary considers that meeting. In terms of outflow monitoring, Scottish Water has carried out a more comprehensive Scotland-wide environmental study programme to assess the impacts of its assets on water quality. That was during the period 2015 to 2021. That investment period, costing £40 million in the computer models that Scottish Water developed, allows it to understand when those combined sewer outflows will spill, under what rain conditions and the impact that those spills will have on the environment. SEPA regularly monitors the water environment to ensure that it is not impacted by sewage spills, and in 2019 it took 19,000 monitoring samples across Scotland to safeguard the water quality of our rivers, our locks and our coastal areas. There is a significant amount of monitoring that goes into those outflows, but, given Foisal Trotter's question, I am more than happy that the Government will give consideration to a meeting if it finds that useful. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to some members of the judiciary expressing opposition to jurilist rape trials. The victims, witnesses and justice reform bill includes proposals for a time-limited pilot of judge-only rape trials. The Senators of the Colleges of Justice response clearly sets out that they have split views on the proposal. Organisations including Rape Crisis Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid support the pilot. They, like many, are concerned at the experiences of complainers, the influence of rape myths and the lower conviction rates of rape. The Senators' response states, and I will quote directly, that there is a serious problem with what happens in jury trials for rape cases. The pilot stems from the recommendations by Lady Dorian, as I know Christine Grahame is aware of. She is, of course, Scotland's second most senior judge. As part of that report and review into how we improve the justice system, particularly for victims and survivors of rape, while also, on this, is crucial, protecting the rights of the accused too. Christine Grahame, I thank the First Minister for his answer. I too have read the submissions from the Senators, both for and against. I am not quoting, but I will paraphrase. There is the evidential difficulty that most alleged victims and the accused were in a relationship, sometimes even after the alleged crime. That may influence the low conviction rate no matter what we use. The right to a fair trial under the European Convention of Human Rights, which is embedded in the Scotland Act, as that may affect the accused. Crucially, as the Government, I understand, is to assess the efficacy of the pilot. For me, there are trespasses on the principle of the separation of powers of legislature and judiciary, an extremely serious issue. Will the First Minister confirm that there will be robust scrutiny of the proposal that the Government has an open mind as reflecting on those concerns and my concerns? Of course, we will be open-minded in our consideration of the legislation. That is why the committee stage of the bill, the evidence gathering stage of the bill, is such a crucial part of the legislative process. It allows us to hear quite robustly, often quite powerfully, the various arguments that are being put forward. I go back to my point, of course, that this recommendation for a time-limited pilot of judolist trials is coming from a review conducted by the second and most senior judge, a very expedient judge, a judge who commands a wide respect right across a political chamber, as Lady Dorian does. Therefore, it is important that we give that weight. As we do, we also give weight to those voices who have expressed concern, not just the judiciary, but we know many members of the legal profession. We will, of course, give that weight. We will also give the voice of victims and survivors weight in this decision and the passage of the bill. We need to improve the experience of rape complainers. I think that all of us would accept the rape myths that do exist within juries as well. Maybe I will end with a quote from Rape Crisis Scotland, which has stayed with me since my days as justice secretary to this very day. I quote them, that many survivors describe the process of going to court more traumatic than the rape itself. That is an unacceptable position in any justice system little on ours. The case for judolist trials in rape cases often cites the work undertaken by Professor Fiona Lennon and her 2020 report on juries in rape myths. However, that report concludes by stating that, before suggesting anything as drastic as removing juries from criminal trials, it is worth considering whether the answer might lie in addressing problematic attitudes via a juror education. That is argued in the report as the way forward before more radical measures are considered. Does the First Minister agree? I think that it is not a case of just doing either or. I think that it is absolutely acceptable to explore both. Education is of course trying to tackle rape myths in society more generally, something that is incumbent upon us to do in government, but also to consider the pilot. Ivan McKeebe is right to reference an excellent piece of work, the most comprehensive jury research undertaken in the entire UK. That work is done by Professor Fiona Lerwick, James Chalmers and others. I may be happy to correct the record if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Professor Leverick supports the proposal for a pilot. I welcome steps that the judiciary has taken to improve jury education. I will highlight the Senators' comments on testing rape myth directions with juries this year. I will quote that when it came to judge directions, they did not prevent acquittals that appear to the trial judge to be conspicuously generous on the evidence-adduced. There is definitely a role for education around rape myths. There is also the option that we should be exploring jury-less trials. Lawyers across Scotland say that they will blikot the SNP's planned jury-less trials, with senior judges also raising concerns that removing jurors constitutes political meddling in the independence of the judiciary by the SNP Government. As I asked his justice secretary yesterday, Wilhams, the use of ignore these concerns, pass his bill and simply hope for the best. Of course, we will listen to the views of the legal profession, we will listen to the weight of opinion of the judiciary and, of course, we will give appropriate weight to the voices of victims and survivors too. However, I go back to the central point—I would make this point quite robustly to Russell Finlay—that this pilot or proposal for a pilot of jury-less trials is coming from Lady Dorian. It is not Government interference by simply exploring the recommendation from the second most senior judge, the Lord Justice Clerk, of Scotland. It does not do an issue that requires great sensitivity to any justice where we attempt to throw around terms such as political interference regardless of who that comes from. Let us give consideration to the voices of the judiciary, but let us also not forget the voices of victims and survivors in this issue too. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the use of antidepressants in Scotland. I understand the impact, and suffering depression can cause sufferers and their families and are committed to improving care, support and access to treatment. It is important that we recognise that many people in Scotland benefit from the use of antidepressant therapy. We established a short-life working group on prescription medicine and withdrawal, which reviewed antidepressants' use across Scotland and involved clinical stakeholders and people with lived experience. In response to this group's recommendations, we will shortly publish a prescribing guide on antidepressants. That provides practical and evidence-driven guidelines on safe and effective prescribing through promotion of person-centred medicine reviews. First Minister, the number of adults and young people being prescribed antidepressants has significantly increased over the past 10 years to over a million. Prescriptions are for a wide range of disorders and illnesses. At the same time, the NHS mental health spending as a percentage has declined between 2011 and 2022. Does the First Minister accept that there is clearly a link between the failure to access mental health services and the subsequent increase in prescriptions? Patients are asking for more than pills. What will ministers do to provide this critical access to mental health services? I cannot be the only one who listened to that question that is really disturbed by the insinuation that antidepressants are not a legitimate treatment for those who require it. They can also be a part of a treatment. It does not mean that people only have access to medicine or only have access to, for example, psychological therapies. For many people, there will be a mixture of both. On our mental health investment, I am proud of this Government's record of investment in mental health services over the past number of years. Significant increases are not just in mental health services but, crucially, in mental health staffing. I am more than happy to ensure that the minister writes to Sue Weber with detail of that. Let me end by saying that ultimately these are clinical decisions and we should leave it for clinicians, not for politicians, to decide who is prescribed antidepressants and who is not. Paul Sweeney has shown that 58 per cent of people in Scotland think that mental health services receive too little of the healthcare budget. By the Scottish Government's own measure, 58 per cent of people are correct, are they? The Government's commitment of 10 per cent to be spent on mental health as part of the overall healthcare budget is not being met with just 8.7 per cent being allocated currently. In cash terms, that means that we are £180 million a year short. Will the First Minister confirm if that 10 per cent target for mental health spending is still a priority for his Government, and if so, how will he personally ensure that it is met? It is still our ambition and our target. Since 2007, mental health spending has doubled in cash terms from £651 million to £1.3 billion. If Paul Sweeney does not want to take my word for it, if I look at the latest Audit Scotland report in relation to mental health, if I look specifically at paragraph 70 of the report, it says that between 2017-18 and 23-24, the Scottish Government's mental health directorate budget increased significantly, that is a direct quote. Again, I am more than happy for the Minister to furnish Paul Sweeney with further details of the significant investment in recruitment of CAMHS staff in particular, and of course the fact that we are seeing record numbers of young people through those services. I want that to continue, and I want those improvements to continue too. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to support the establishment of a pilot safer drug consumption facility. I welcomed the decision taken yesterday by the integrated joint board, which following the position taken by Lord Advocate in the safer drug consumption facility proposal now allows Glasgow to move ahead with this pilot. We have been consistent in our commitment to support the setup of a safer drug consumption facility, which included facilitating work between Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership and Police Scotland to develop the proposal that was then submitted to the Lord Advocate. We provided Glasgow with an absolute assurance around funding in advance of yesterday's meeting of Glasgow's integrated joint board to discuss the establishment of such a facility. We will also continue to play an active role in the planning and implementation work to ensure that the facility is delivered in a timely manner and, of course, fully evaluated to. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Alongside other Glasgow MSPs, I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the issue last month. The response suggests that the Home Office will not stand in the way of the Lord Advocate's authority on this matter, providing its exercise lawfully. Whilst welcome, it is disappointing that the UK Government seems unwilling to work with the Scottish Government to actively progress this public health measure. Does the First Minister agree that it appears that the UK's inaction on this matter is a political rather than pragmatic, and that true co-operation from the Home Office on this would help to provide even better care and support? I do agree with Cokab Stewart that she is right that, of course, the easiest way, the simplest way and the quickest way to have had such a facility up and running would have been if the Home Office gave approval. I am not sure why Labour seemed to be acting as a human shield for the Conservatives, but I would say to Labour and Conservative members that even with the Lord Advocate's statement of prosecution policy, there are limitations on the pilot. In fact, the safer drug consumption facility can only be focused on the narrow pilot in Glasgow. I know that there have been calls for other pilots to be established, but we know that the statement of prosecution policy is for simple possession offences within the pilot. I welcome the fact that the Home Office and the UK Government have said that they will not stand in the way. I urge them to take a public health approach to tackling drug deaths that we have done here in Scotland and to give approval so that we can hopefully use safer drug consumption facilities as one of the tools and a whole range of tools to try to fight what is still unacceptably high levels of drug deaths here in Scotland. In evidence to the finance committee, a leading economist emphasised how crucial it is for the Scottish Government to invest in Scotland's infrastructure for economies to grow and our living standards improve. What is the First Minister's response to the Auditor General's report published today that the UK Tory Government is expected to impose, at a time of high interest rates and inflation, a real-terms 7 per cent reduction in Scotland's capital block grant over the next four years, while the Prime Minister continues to dither over the tens of billions being squandered on the HS2 rail project? The First Minister is absolutely right to raise the UK Government's cut to our capital budget, that real-terms 7 per cent cut to our capital budget, because we know that infrastructure investment is absolutely key to securing inclusive economic growth and delivering high-quality public services. We have been consistent about the challenges, we have been very open about the challenges facing our capital investment plans and, of course, the tough decisions that we will need to take in relation to the budget 24-25. The challenging economic conditions of the last few years, resulting from Brexit, resulting from the disastrous money budget and the UK Government not inflation-proofing the capital budget, has resulted in that 7 per cent real-terms fall on our barnet capital funding over the medium term. We will, of course, look at what innovative finance models we can use to power that investment, infrastructure investment in the years to come, but that job has been made considerably harder by that 7 per cent real-term cut from the UK Government. A fire has devastated the former station hotel in air, causing massive disruption to the rail network in the south-west of Scotland. I would like to put my on record my thanks to the firefighters who fought this fire and all other emergency workers involved. It is crucial that the air station is opened as soon as possible. Can I ask the First Minister what financial help the Scottish Government will give stakeholders to help pay for the substantial cost that they face to make the area safe and reopen this vital rail network? First Minister. I thank Shalinda Wee for her question and add my appreciation for our emergency services, in particular Scottish Fire, and rescue, who battled not just throughout the night but into the next day in order to ensure that the fire was under control. They have always had my utmost respect and that has only increased after the events in terms of air station hotel. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has remained in attendance, but there are no further signs of fire. The site should be handed over to South Ayrshire Council. My understanding is today that ScotRail, as Shalinda Wee may know, has introduced alternative arrangements. With an emergency timetable and train service running from Prestwick Town supported by the replacement bus transport. In terms of the direct question that Shalinda Wee asks, of course the Government will be open to discussions around what support we can provide in order to not just secure the site but to make sure that services are running as close to normal as possible. The First Minister may be aware that tenants and home owners were moved out of their homes until the country on Tuesday evening because of safety concerns after the identification of rack in the roof of their block of flats. That is clearly very upsetting and worrying for my constituents. What discussion the Scottish Government is having with Clackmannanshire Council following the identification of rack in those homes? Will our financial assistance be made available to local authorities and registered social landlords who discover rack? What assistance and advice can be given to home owners who find themselves in this situation? My thoughts are very much with the families who have had to leave their homes. I recognise the impact that that will have on them. I commend the very quick action taken by Clackmannanshire Council to make sure that those households are safe. There is very regular dialogue between the Scottish Government and COSLA on the issue of rack. Assessments of risks related to rack are very much under way across the housing sector and information will be provided as it becomes available. We are working closely with housing stakeholders to ensure that the necessary action is being taken where risks are identified. Clare Baker will know from previous ministerial statements given as an update to rack that we have not received any additional funding from the UK Government in relation to rack, but, of course, if there are additional financial requests for funding in relation to dealing with rack from local authorities, we will give that in due consideration. In the programme for government, the First Minister reaffirmed the welcome commitment to dual the A96 as between Inverness and Aldern, including the Nairn bypass. In November last year, the then transport secretary assured this chamber that the necessary statutory orders, compulsory purchase and ancillary roads would be made in a matter of weeks. Nearly a year later, my constituents are still waiting. Will the First Minister therefore ask the transport secretary to bring an oral statement to the Parliament to explain why there has been such a further delay? The good people of Nairn and indeed of the whole of the north of Scotland are surely entitled to know what is or is not going on. The people of Miners and, of course, of Nairn are absolutely due to an update. I am more than happy to consider a ministerial statement, but perhaps, if it is more appropriate, an written update to the member and to other members who have an interest in relation to the A96. Of course, our manifestal commitment remains the dualling of the A96, in particular the Inverness to Nairn bypass. For reasons that are known to Fergus Ewing, there is a review outside of the Inverness to Nairn section of options that have been taken place for a number of reasons, including our commitments to climate obligations. Fergus Ewing is absolutely right. We are duty bound to give updates to members of the public in relation to our infrastructure projects, including the A96. I will give consideration to the ask that Fergus Ewing makes and decide what is the most appropriate way to update him, members of the chamber and members of the public, on our latest plans in relation to the A96. Very tragically, last year, there were 174 fatalities on Scotland's roads. That has increased 23 per cent year on year, and it is actually at its highest level since 2016. I am sure that many of us in the chamber and our constituents have been touched by many of those tragic accidents, but, First Minister, that is also against the backdrop of a 14 per cent drop in police road traffic officers over the last decade. Many prominent road safety campaigners say that there clearly is a link, as does the Scottish Police Federation. Does the First Minister share my concerns and the concerns of road safety campaigners about these tragic statistics, and what is the Scottish Government going to do about them? I absolutely agree with Jamie Greene that any life lost is tragic in my condolences to go out to every single family, every single community that has been impacted by a death on our roads. I would say to Jamie Greene that when it comes to Police Scotland, we have increased funding to Police Scotland this financial year, a significant increase to Police Scotland in terms of its resource budget. We will continue to consider what more we can do to support Police Scotland, but we also know that capital interventions on our roads can be quite important, whether that is signage, whether that is the appropriate speed cameras, whether it is any other intervention. We will consider what more we can do to make our roads as safe as possible. We have very ambitious targets in relation to reducing those deaths on our roads. I will ensure that the cabinet secretary writes to Jamie Greene with further detail on action that we are taking in this regard. Yesterday's decision by the UK Government to grant a licence to the Rosebank oil and gas field is nothing short of a climate catastrophe condemning us to a future dependent on fossil fuels whilst the planet around us burns. It shows utter contempt for both our environment and the future generations who will live with the consequences. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the decision? Can he confirm if the UK Government carried out the climate compatibility assessment needed before the licence was granted? I have gone record to say that it is the wrong decision to approve Rosebank at a time when the world is literally on fire, when the planet is burning, when we have seen the most devastating impacts of the climate catastrophe. Instead of showing climate leadership, what we have from the UK Government is complete and utter climate denial. In Scotland's future, the north-east future is as the net zero capital. It is not as the oil and gas capital. It is transitioning from that to a net zero capital. That is the future that I want to see. That is why we have invested £500 million in that just transition fund. While the Conservatives believe in unlimited oil and gas extraction—infinite oil and gas extraction—we believe in a greener, more sustainable future for Scotland and, as ever, the Conservatives on this issue, as with many other issues, will be on the wrong side of history. During our member's debate on 31 May, John Swinney intervened to say that I was incorrect to state that UK swimming pool funding from the Treasury was in addition to the Scottish budget. Mr Swinney has now admitted to me that he was wrong, apologised and corrected the record, and I thank him for that. However, on 29 June, I intervened on Minister Siobhan Brown, who is walking away, to state the same basic fact. The Minister responded that Barnett consequentials had already been added to the local authority bloc. The Minister then wrote to me apologising and corrected the record, and I thank her for that. Yesterday, I asked Minister Jo Fitzpatrick about the same UK swimming pool fund. In his response, he stated that, as I said, the money has been allocated. It was allocated to budgets as part of 100 million of additional funding that went to local government at stage 3 of the budget bill. Stage 3 of the budget was in February, and, as John Swinney admitted to me in his apology, the money was allocated by the UK Government much later. For the SNP to make this mistake once was unfortunate. To make this mistake twice looks like incompetence. To make this mistake three times looks deliberate. Can you let me know if Minister Fitzpatrick has made any attempt to correct the record, and can you tell me if there is any action you can take, given the torrent of corrections now being issued by Scottish ministers, when such an important issue that affects our communities across Scotland has been obscured to such an extent? Thank you for your contribution, Mr Lumsden. I am unaware as to whether or not any attempt to correct the record has been made. Of course, all members will agree that it is of paramount importance that members, including ministers, give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity. If a member has a question about the factual accuracy of another member's contribution, they should raise it with that member. I am sure that, at this point in the term, the chamber is well aware that the Parliament has a corrections procedure and how that mechanism operates. We will have a short suspension at the moment to allow members to leave the gallery and those members of the public, I should say, leaving the gallery to do so, before we move on to members' business.