 Mae'r cwmhysgwlio'r cwmhysgwlio'r next item of business yng nghyd-gwysig i'r prydau y Maes Gwyrdd yng nghymru. Cyfnodd y cwmhysgwlio yng Nghymru, Douglas Ross. Cyfnodd y cwmhysgwlio, byddai'n gyfrifio'r cwmhysgwlio yn gwyntafodol Henry Woogha a'n hyfforddiol ein 100th birthdwy i'r cyfrifio. Felly, mae'n gweld i'n ffraeg i gyrhau y gweithredu iawn i hefyd, o ganfodol y cwmni yn ymwneud hyn yn y brydol, i ddweud yn y lleolol. Rydyn ni'n gŵr i'r ffrindiau ac rydyn ni'n ddweud i'ch gweithio'r ffordd y cyffredinion o'r mae'r gweithio'r cyffredinion. Felly yn 1939, Nuremberg, wedi Gwasgol, ac yn gyfryd yng Nghymrungas Gwyrddol, i gydag o'r ffordd o'r cyffredinion a'r ffordd i'r lleolol i'r Ysgolffind, i'r cyfrif yma i ddechrau unrhyw helychol yn gweithio. Scotland will miss his charm, his integrity and resolution but we will never forget his testimony and I believe that we can all commit to ensuring that his legacy will endure. Now reunited with his beloved ingrate, may his memory be a blessing. Presiding Officer, can I remind the chamber that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland? The Hate Crime Act comes into effect from 1 April. We voted against this law and still oppose it as a serious risk to free speech, but in just 11 days' time, the police will have to enforce it. David Kennedy, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, has said this about training. We are only receiving a two-hour online training package. First Minister, is that really enough for a complex and controversial piece of legislation? First and foremost, I join Douglas Ross in paying tribute to Henry Wuga, a greatly respected Holocaust survivor who we know passed away at the age of 100 earlier this week. It is hard to think that only a few weeks ago we stood up to wish him well on his 100th birthday and now we are standing up once again to mourn his passing because Henry was a truly remarkable man who made an enormous contribution to Scottish society, but his impact, his influence, his legacy goes far beyond Scotland as he campaigned against antisemitism and reminded us to never forget the horrors of the Holocaust. My thoughts are very much. With Henry's family, his friends and all those who are the privilege of knowing him and his memory, we will all continue, I am sure, to campaign against hatred in whichever form it rears its ugly head. I also take with your indulgence a moment to congratulate Vaughan Gething on his appointment as First Minister of Wales. His appointment as the first black leader of a Government in the UK is a truly monumental moment, and I look forward to working with him. Vaughan Gething's predecessor, Mark Drakeford, was a principled First Minister, a model public servant, and, importantly, a very fierce defender of devolution. I think that the whole chamber wants to join me in wishing him well. First of all, when it comes to the hate crime act, there has been a lot of disinformation that has been spread on social media, in some inaccurate media reporting and, indeed, by our political opponents. I am hoping that, in exchange, we can shed more light than heat on what is actually in the act, as opposed to what is being said about it. On training for police, I leave it as an operational decision and a matter for the chief constable to determine what training is absolutely appropriate. Of course, Police Scotland put out a statement just this week to challenge, in its words, the inaccurate media reporting that exists around the Hate Crime Act. I have absolute confidence in Police Scotland to ensure that the appropriate training is in place. Let me remind Douglas Ross that stirring up offences is not new in Scotland. As a person of colour, I have been protected from anybody stirring up hatred against me because of my race, virtually all of my life, since 1986. In fact, all of us are protected by that provision of stirring up hatred. The question is whether I have protection against somebody stirring up hatred because of my race, and that has been the case since 1986. Why in earth should those protections not exist for somebody because of their sexuality or disability or their religion? The facts are that, for a new stirring up offence to be committed, we know that there is a very high threshold—in fact, an even higher threshold—than the barrier that there is or the threshold that there is for a racial stirring up offence. I would say to Douglas Ross that it is incredibly important. In the memory of people like Kenny Wuga, where he started his contribution, we all unite in standing up and opposing hatred in all of its forms. A strong legislative framework to protect people is incredibly important. I would urge the Conservatives—I would urge Douglas Ross—that it would be far better for him, I think, to put more effort into tackling hatred as opposed to opposing a hate crime act. Can I echo the First Minister's comments and wish for him to get as well as the new First Minister of Wales? We oppose the legislation at the time and still oppose it now because of the impact that it has on free speech for people across this country. I am only reiterating the points that were made by the Scottish Police Federation, the representative body of our officers across Scotland. They say that their officers can barely deal with existing crimes, let alone this new law. They described the hate crime act as, I quote, a recipe for disaster. Humza Yousaf has reduced officer numbers to the lowest level since Police Scotland was formed. Now officers are being told not to investigate actual crimes, but instead they will have to look for the hate monster or police free speech. Criminals will be let off while innocent people are prosecuted. Is not Humza Yousaf setting the police up for failure and undermining public trust in policing? The First Minister with that contribution is Douglas Ross, who is undermining the fight against hatred here in Scotland. He is undermining it completely, utterly and entirely through so much disinformation. I do not even know where to begin. Let us take point by point of what Douglas Ross has said. First and foremost, he makes an incorrect claim around police officer numbers under the SNP Government. Of course, under the SNP Government, numbers of police officers have increased and will continue to increase, given what we have heard recently from the chief constable and backed by a record budget from this Scottish Government. Of course, there are more police officers per head in Scotland than in England, where his party is of course in charge. Let us take the points that Douglas Ross raises around the act itself, freedom of expression. I remember, because I was the justice secretary who took forward this bill, making sure that I engaged with Opposition members around the issue of freedom of expression. There is a triple lock of freedom of expression in the act. There is protection of freedom of expression that is explicitly embedded in the act. There is also a defence available of a person's behaviour being reasonable, which safeguards people's rights. Thirdly, the act itself is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, including article 10, which includes and protects everybody's right to freedom. Stirring up offences are so pervasive, damaging and dangerous in our society. Let me take Douglas Ross back to what Lord Bracadale said. He was the one who reported on his independent review of hate crime, which led to the development of legislation. He said that, quote, the stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which prejudice and discrimination are accepted as normal. In any society, the freedom to criticise, the freedom to insult, the freedom to offend exists and should be treasured, in fact. But there cannot be freedom to engage in behaviour that is threatening or abusive and intended to start up hatred. Everybody in the chamber, we engage, we talk often about our commitment to tackle hatred. Those who experience hatred tell me that they do not just want one word from the politicians, they want action, and that is exactly what this hate crime act intends to do. Douglas Ross said that people want action that is enforceable, and the Scottish Police Federation is saying that it has serious concerns. Its officers are receiving a two-hour online training module for the legislation. The First Minister keeps trying to say that are my comments or not. I originally was quoting the Scottish Police Federation, let me now quote legal experts, like Roddy Dunlop, the dean of the... Please continue, Mr Ross. I think that it is only right that we say that ministers in the Scottish Government do not think that we should be hearing from the faculty of advocates. Please continue, Mr Ross. Let us hear, Mr Ross. I can say that it was Mary Todd who was the minister that said that. Mr Ross can ask you to continue with your question. Members, can we please ensure that we can hear Mr Ross? So legal experts, including Roddy Dunlop, the dean of the faculty of advocates, said that there is a danger of the police being swamped by completely malicious complaints. Not my views, but the dean of the faculty of advocates. Days before this law comes into force, it is unclear how those complaints would be dealt with by the police. People like J.K. Rowland could have the police at her door every day for making perfectly reasonable statements. That could lead to huge numbers of the public being monitored or even criminalised by the police when they have done nothing wrong. Isn't Humza Yousaf putting front-line officers in an impossible position by forcing them to police free speech? First Minister. We know that it is often police officers who are unfortunately the victims of hatred themselves. They are often the ones who are facing hatred when it comes to the course of their duties. Douglas Ross says that he has no idea how a stirring-up offence could possibly be enforceable. I am making the point that a stirring-up offence in relation to racial hatred has existed since 1986 with virtually zero controversy whatsoever, so I have absolute faith in Police Scotland's ability to police and enforce this act in a way that is appropriate. In terms of the points that Roddy Dunlop, of course I respect greatly. The points that I would say in respect to Roddy Dunlop is that police, again, are very well tuned, adept and have ability to deal with vixacious complaints right across the legal framework with which they operate. I cannot tell you whether they will be vixacious complaints or not. That will, of course, depend on people's actions, but what I can say is that the liability for criminal threshold is incredibly high. If you do not want to take my word for it, let us look at another legal expert, Professor Adam Tomkins, I think, known to Douglas Ross, formerly a Conservative MSP, somebody that I worked with in relation to the hate crime bill. He writes in today's Herald. He is, of course, Professor of Public Law, and I will quote from him directly, Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation. The only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech in which one, a reasonable person, would consider to be threatening or abusive, three which was intended to stir up hatred, and four was not reasonable in any circumstances. He goes on to say, just because you feel offended by what someone does, does not make it a hate crime. And then goes on to say, under the Hate Crime Act, the threshold of criminal liability is not a victim that feels offended, ie a subjective test, but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator's actions or speech to be threatening or abusive. So, Presiding Officer, let us stick to the facts. And the facts are this, that we are all purport to be concerned about the rises in hate crime that we have seen in our society over the years. But there are only some parties in this chamber that I believe are willing to take the action that is necessary to tackle it. It was, of course, an act and a bill at that point that was debated thoroughly in this chamber. It is unfortunate that the only party that opposed it, of course, was the Conservatives, Presiding Officer. Dr Shoss. In a democracy, we have scrutiny. We have opposition parties to look at the legislation coming forward. And there have been and continue to be serious reservations about this act that was passed and now how it will be implemented. Let's remember, Humza Yousaf introduced this unworkable and dangerous law when he was Justice Secretary. Now he's bringing it into force as First Minister with little training and not enough support for the officers who will have to enforce it. Let's have a quote from a professor of law at Glasgow University, First Minister, it just quoted. Alasdair Bonnington said this. Overreach by the SNP into people's homes. It could result in the public being criminalised for no good reason. It is set to be a shambles from day one in just 11 days time. So, will Humza Yousaf finally accept that he has created another bad SNP law that will quickly descend into chaos? What's dangerous, isn't the law? What's dangerous is hate crime in our society. You see, we did debate this act when it was, of course, a bill going through this Parliament extensively. Many years ago, robust debate. Actually, I thought that debate is sometimes and often the best traditions of this Parliament. There was compromises. There was amendments that were accepted by the Government. We came out of that process with a good piece of legislation that fundamentally protected people's freedom of expression, freedom of speech, but also safeguarded people's right not to have hatred stirred up against them. Of course, there was only one party that opposed that bill, Douglas Ross and the Conservative Party. Maybe it's hardly a surprise, given that the Conservative Party, far from working hard to tackle hatred, there is a party that has actively created the conditions for hatred and division to thrive in our society. The Conservative Party are the party of go-home vans, the party of the hostile environment, the party of Windrush, the party whose leader Boris Johnson called Muslim women and the party that indulges in Islamophobic smears from Srella Braverman to Lee Anderson. So, instead of fighting against this bill— Briefly, in First Minister. —Windrush, the Conservative Party has its own house in order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I join others in, first of all, paying tribute to Henry Wuga, a Holocaust survivor who very powerfully shared his own story, the stories of others, and always campaigned against anti-Semitism. We send our best wishes to his friends, family and the wider Jewish community. We owe it to Henry and his entire generation to make sure that we share their stories and always strive for both peace and strive for a world free of prejudice and hate. Can I also join the First Minister and congratulate him on getting on his election—another historic first, the first-ever black leader of a nation in Europe—as the First Minister of Wales and send our best wishes to his predecessor, Mark Drakeford? This morning, a damning report by the Royal College of Pediatric and Child Health has warned of the catastrophic consequences of this Government's failure. In pediatrics alone, over 10,000 children are waiting for the medical care that they need. 50 per cent of them have been waiting for more than the legal 12 weeks. So how does the First Minister respond to one of the leading paediatric consultants in the country, Dr Mary Stark, who said, if you miss the right window to treat a child or wait too long, the consequences can be irreversible and that this is a clear failure to prioritise the health and wellbeing of our children? First Minister, first and foremost, I would take the report from the Royal College extremely seriously indeed. Of course, we will examine and are examining that report in detail. As ever, it is important for me to provide some context of why we are seeing such high numbers of young people, young children waiting. The undeniable reason for that significant increase is undoubtedly the global pandemic, hence why we have seen those significant increases in paediatric waits right across the UK and England, and in Wales and, of course, here in Scotland too. Annas Alwar is right, of course, and the Royal College is right to raise the concerns around this issue, so let me try to give some assurances that we are focusing on tackling those far too long waits in paediatrics just by way of some examples. We know that there is two main paediatric specialities, paediatrics and paediatric surgery. If I take the data from April 23 to the end of the calendar year, December 23, the paediatric new outpatient list reduced by 21 per cent, waits over 52 weeks reduced by 12 per cent and waits over 78 weeks, reduced by 31 per cent and waits over two years were completely eradicated. If I take the position over the two years, December 21 to December 2023 and look at paediatric surgery, the new outpatient list for paediatric surgery reduced by 35 per cent, waits of over 52 per cent, reduced by 84 per cent, over 78 weeks reduced by 95 per cent. The purpose of reiterating those statistics and we know that, of course, behind those statistics is a young child who is waiting and waiting too long for surgery is to show that there are improvements we are moving in the right direction. What makes the recovery of the NHS far more difficult is the fact that, of course, we are receiving cuts from the Conservatives on our budget, £500 million over two years, £1.3 billion in terms of our capital. We are, of course, investing in our NHS despite those cuts. It would be helpful to know from Anna Sawa that, if there is an incoming Labour Government, it would immediately reverse those Conservative cuts because it impedes our ability in order to invest in the NHS's recovery, which, of course, is much needed for our children, our young people as well as our adults too. Anna Sawa Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister knows that this problem predates the pandemic, that the report makes clear 11 years of decline every day of which there has been an SNP Government, and he also knows that Labour is going to invest more in the national health service, and we do want to bring down waiting lists, but he has to take responsibility for his Government's actions, not look to blame somebody else all the time. The crisis in children's health goes further than even this report warns. Across our NHS, whether in CAMHS services or in other specialisms, children face unacceptable weights that have left them distressed and in pain. One mum, Amy, has told me the struggles faced by her three-year-old son, Cody. Cody has been repeatedly diagnosed with tonsillitis, and his enlarged tonsils obstruct over 75 per cent of his airway, making it difficult to eat, drink and even breathe. She has told me that she has to lie awake next to him during the night because his breathing stops and she has to nudge him to restart his breathing again. She has had to fight to get Cody referred to a specialist, but it has been told that an urgent referral for treatment will take three years. Amy has had to make the difficult decision to go private, borrowing almost £5,000 from her family. Why is he and his Government feeling Amy, Cody and so many families like theirs? I am more than happy to look at the case that is referenced by Anna Sauer on Cody's case. Indeed, any other case that a member raises, we are happy to explore the health board in terms of what more can be done. It sounds like a horrifically long wait that we do not want any parent to have to endure. The point that I make to Anna Sauer is that progress has been made, given her range of details on how progress has been made in relation to paediatric surgery, which is relevant to his question. We are also making sure that we are investing in the workforce. Paediatric specialty consultants have increased their numbers by 15 per cent in the last five years by 64 per cent in the last 10 years. When we look at qualified paediatric nurses, the workforce has increased by 11 per cent in the last five years. Since 2014, we have also invested in the recruitment of an additional 500 health visitors and 200 extra school nurses again, which undoubtedly helped with young people and children's health and wellbeing. I do not take lightly at all the issues that Anna Sauer raises about the long waits that parents and children are having to suffer. In Anna Sauer's initial response, he did not answer the question that I asked, which was that an incoming Labour Government, potentially incoming Labour Government, immediately reversed the £1.3 billion cut, which is making an impact in terms of our healthcare provision. If he could give that combination, we might be able to plan further ahead in terms of the further investment that we are able to make, because it is only through record investment in the NHS are we going to be able to recover our national health services for children and young people? I want to ask questions about a party in opposition rather than talking about their own record and failing children across the country. It just shows how out of depth the First Minister is. All those lists and excuses mean nothing to Amy, mean nothing to Cody and mean nothing to the thousands of families that his Government is failing every single day. Because he simply does not get it. In every area of responsibility for this SNP Government, children are being failed with catastrophic consequences. After 17 years of this SNP Government, 240,000 children are living in poverty, over 10,000 children waiting for pediatric medical care, over 9,500 children turned away from mental health services last year. I suggest that the Deputy First Minister listen to the consequences for her constituents rather than trying to heckle what is happening to children across this country. For those who were referred, over 5,500 children are waiting to get mental health support. Nearly a third of pupils in Scotland are persistently absent from school in some areas as high as 50 per cent. Almost 40 per cent of pupils now need additional support. At the same time, this SNP Government has cut 400 ASN posts in the last decade. Is it not clear that Humza Yousaf and every single member of this SNP Government are failing Scotland's children? I do not agree with that. I thought that it was a pretty reasonable question, which obviously Anna Sauer is unable to answer. He will want to be honest with people about the answer. He was unable to answer a very simple question that, if there is an incoming Labour Government, will they immediately reverse the Tory cut to Scotland's budget? The fact that he was unable to answer the question demonstrates that he either does not know the answer, or he is not being honest with the people of Scotland. What I would say to Anna Sauer is that it is fundamentally important in all the areas of public service that we invest in. That is why this Government took the decision to make sure that we prioritise our public services. That is why we gave an increase to the national health service. We made sure that there was an increase to education services. We made sure that there was an increase to social security. All of those issues are incredibly important for our children and young people. That is why estimates show that 100,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty because of our actions. That is why more young people in this country are going to university from areas of higher deprivation because of our investment. That is why more young people—we have record young people going into positive destinations because of our investment in education, earlier learning and childcare, Presiding Officer. That is why, of course, it is imperative, throughout all those challenges, that Governments and political parties make a decision. Do they invest in public services? Thank you, First Minister. We must move on to the next question. First Minister, I have asked that you conclude your question. I am now moving on to the next question that you conclude your response. Question 3, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I associate the Scottish Liberal Democrats with the remarks that were already made about the passing of Henry Wuga and, indeed, the election of Vongethig. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. Yesterday, the Committee on Climate Change delivered a devastating verdict about the record of the Scottish Government. The key 2030 emissions target just won't be met. The Government is, of course, by a country mile on heat pumps, electric vehicles, recycling and more. Its chair, Chris Stark, said that yesterday, the strategy is just not there. Take tree planting. It says that Scotland needs to do twice as much, but the Government has just reduced spending on that by nearly half. It is going to put people out of work and tree nurseries have already signalled that they will have to torch hundreds of thousands of saplings because of the cuts. To think that the environment sector once boasted that global leaders were looking to her Government for advice while her phone is silent now. Where are the Green Party in all of this? Fewer bus and train services going nowhere on renewable heating, a botched deposit return scheme? Doesn't he recognise that bringing them into government has done precious little to help us combat the climate emergency? First of all, we take the report from the Climate Change Committee extremely seriously. Chris Stark is well respected and, of course, his opinions are being given the due and weighty consideration that he deserves. It is a serious point that he raises around the 2030 target. Of course, at the time when that target was being debated, the climate change committee made it clear that it would be extremely difficult, if not frankly impossible, or that that target was stretching credibility at that time. Nonetheless, we, as a Parliament, came together—all political parties—to embed that target within the legislation. In terms of tree planting, I remind Alex Cole-Hamilton that around 75 per cent of all new woodland throughout the UK is here in Scotland. Not only that, we launched, of course, the world's largest floating offshore wind leasing round through Scotland. We ensured, of course, that Scotland has the most concessionary travel scheme in the UK, with more than a third of the population benefiting from free bus travel. We invested £65 million in installation of more than 2,700 public EV charges. We continue to offer the most generous package of grants and loans in the UK to support the move to clean heating. What I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is that what makes this job of ours more difficult in trying to reach our targets—we are committed to that overall 2045 target—is that every time that we bring forward measures, be it the deposit return scheme, low-emission zones, workplace parking levy, proposed— Briefly, First Minister. Or, indeed, our standards around heating and reducing emissions. What makes that job far more difficult, Presiding Officer, is that the opposition opposes every single measure that we bring to this chamber to tackle the climate crisis. To ask the First Minister what analysis of passenger behaviour and numbers has been carried out since the inception of the removal of peak rail fares pilot? The trial is an exciting and unique opportunity to encourage more people to leave their cars at home, choose a safe, reliable and green form of public transport. I can confirm that an interim analysis is due to be published shortly, examines the impact on rail travel patterns and other modes. The Scottish Government will carefully consider the impact and, of course, the long-term sustainability of any further measures before we confirm what our next steps are. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the First Minister for that answer. The removal of peak fares has been greatly welcomed by my Aberdeen central constituents and by tens of thousands of other people across Scotland. In my opinion, it has been beneficial to many during these tough times caused by the cost of living crisis. Can the First Minister give an indication on whether the removal of peak fares will become permanent? I am pleased to hear about the positive impact that this particular policy is having on Mr Stewart's constituents. I have heard similar stories from my constituents and constituents of other MSPs across the country, particularly during the cost of living crisis, but the purpose of the ScotRail peak fares is twofold to find out whether such measures will help to move people from car to rail use, but also to help passengers facing the cost of living crisis. We know that price and simplicity are crucial for people when it comes to choosing how to travel. The pilot that we know, as has already been said, operates until the end of June. As such, it would be, of course, inappropriate to confirm whether, of course, the abolition of peak fares will become permanent. I heard of a final evaluation, so it will be important to review the data as an entire purpose, of course, of the pilot, to see whether we are seeing that modal shift and to examine the data around how much this is helping people during a cost of living crisis. Of course, when that evaluation has been appropriately analysed, we will, of course, inform Parliament of the next stages and steps in relation to this particular policy. There is no doubt that if we are to get any place near reaching our net zero targets, we will have to do much better when it comes to reducing emissions and transport. Will the First Minister commit to coming back to this chamber in enough time so that we will be able to hopefully make the pilot permanent? What, in effect, is the case is that people are being priced off public transport, and if we want to tackle that and we want to get more people to use public transport, it is exactly this type of step that I welcome that we need to now make permanent. First Minister. I can say to Alex Rowley that, of course, we will evaluate the data and we will bring forward an analysis of that data. It is important that we do not pre-up that data. We need to see whether the data has shown us, has demonstrated that modal shift that Alex Rowley rightly talks about, so let us not pre-up that data, let us examine that data, let us analyse the evidence and then let other MSPs do the same with the analysis of that data. I agree with the thrust of his question that it is important to invest in our public transport, so I am very pleased that this Government invested in leaving with railway something that, of course, Alex Rowley, I am sure would welcome. It is why we have an extremely generous concessionary travel scheme. I would say, though gently to Alex Rowley, that is why I make the point that it is extremely frustrating for this Government when we bring forward various policies to encourage that modal shift to help to reduce our carbon emissions. They are often opposed by the Opposition. We have brought forward the workplace parking levy, for example. It was called by his colleague, who is sitting just a couple of rows behind him, Colin Smyth. He described it as highway robbery. He called it a car park tax, so it is really unfortunate, Presiding Officer, that when we bring forward those measures, Opposition parties oppose it simply for the sake of opposing it. Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will engage with NHS Scotland on ending the prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones to children following the recent announcement by NHS England. Presiding Officer, we are aware of the new clinical policy that was issued by NHS England last week on the routine prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones for children and young people as a treatment option for gender dysphoria. The details of that are being closely considered by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and its relevant clinical team, obviously, as the provider of young people's gender services at Sandyford. Any decision on how such healthcare is delivered in Scotland will rightly be made by health boards, but, most importantly, the clinicians involved. It should be noted that NHS England's announcement follows our interim policy position last year. Recommending puberty blockers are only accessed via a research programme that is establishing. The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland remain observers to that particular study, and we are considering what further engagement may be appropriate. I asked the First Minister about the prescription of puberty blockers to children in May last year. The First Minister said, and I quote, I support such decisions being made by clinicians, by the people who have clinical knowledge. We should trust those who have clinical expertise, as opposed to standing here in the chamber making judgments about what is best for young people who need gender identity services. However, the truth of the matter is that we do not know if puberty blockers have long-term life-changing consequences on young people who take them. That is why NHS England is conducting a review. Therefore, will the First Minister publish all evidence that his Government has that puberty blockers are safe for children? If his Government does not have any evidence, why is he allowing NHS health boards to prescribe them? Meghan Gallacher read out my response to her last time round. My position has not changed one bit. I still believe that it is the point that clinical experts in Scotland should be the ones who determine whether or not puberty blockers are prescribed or not. I think that that is a sensible position, as opposed to politicians demanding what clinical treatment should be for the clinical experts. On the study that is taking place, I referenced in my response to Meghan Gallacher's first question that we are engaging with the study that is taking place. The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland are well engaged with NHS England on its planned study into the use of puberty blockers in young people's gender identity healthcare. We are observers to that study and that remains a work in progress. We are considering what future engagement in that research may well be possible. I go back to the point that I have made already to Meghan Gallacher. Of course, it is for clinicians to make those judgments. I think that it is right that we trust our clinical clinicians and their expert decision making. In terms of the studies that are taking place in England, I am more than happy to confirm that we are observers. We are keeping close to NHS England and we will continue to do so as that study develops. Question 6, Pauline McNeill. To ask the First Minister what resources the Scottish Government will be providing to Police Scotland for the investigation of complaints made under the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021. We have worked with justice partners, including Police Scotland, to ensure that the act is effectively implemented when it commences next month. The Scottish Police Authority's budget for 2425 delivers record police funding of £1.55 billion. It is an increase of £92.7 million when compared to the current financial year. It is for the SPA and the chief constable to allocate this budget according to their priorities and their needs, and that should absolutely include the investigation of complaints that are made under the Hate Crime Act. I am aware that some commentary in the act, as I have already said, is not really reflective or accurate of the measures in the act, which was passed by a majority of the Parliament. The act does not stop freedom of expression. However, it makes unlawful the intention of stirring up hatred against a person or community for particular characteristics, as it already does for race. Pauline McNeill. The First Minister has reiterated several times today that the Hate Crime Act, which comes into force on 1 April, must deliver what Parliament intended, that people must not be criminalised for expressing their opinions, and I agree. Some organisations are still concerned that legislation will be used maliciously to silence legitimate opinion, and it would be helpful, First Minister, if the Scottish Government would engage with those groups. Does the First Minister agree that how the act is interpreted by the police is key and how they are trained is key and their resources are crucially important? Does the First Minister understand my concerns that the police are not properly resourced but crucially properly and adequately trained to implement the act as it was intended? We agree on that that it could risk criminalising innocent people and further stretching police resources, make the act work and make sure that there are full resources to ensure that what this Parliament intended is deal-lovered. I know that Pauline McNeill takes the issue of tackling hatred very seriously. It is something that she and I have worked on over the years and many different guises. Let me try to give some assurance to Pauline McNeill and those she is raising concerns on behalf of. First, I make the point that I made already to Douglas Ross that there are multiple freedom of expression safeguards within the law. There is explicitly a freedom of expression safeguard within the legislation. Of course, there is a reasonable person defence, but there is also the fact that the legislation has to apply with the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 10 being particularly important. There is a triple lock of safeguards that are already there. On how the police then enforce the act—let me again try to give Pauline McNeill some assurances—police officers since 1986 have been effectively policing and enforcing the law and stirring up hatred for crimes in relation to race. Now, the threshold for the new offences is higher than the racial stirring up offence, but they have been doing so since 1986. With virtually zero controversy, I have every confidence that they are able to do so for the new offences that are being brought into law in just a matter of weeks. In terms of resourcing and training, I will reiterate the points that I have already made. We are providing record funding for Police Scotland in relation to the next year's budget. In training, I again refer to the points that have already been made by Police Scotland in the public domain. I have every confidence in their ability to train officers for the act when it comes into force. I am very pleased that the act will be coming into force because I believe that it will give people the necessary protections at a time when we are seeing hate crime far too pervasive in our society, far too prominent in our society and being peddled by some within the community of our society. The First Minister will be aware that the Police Scotland hate crime website explicitly stereotypes young working-class men from constituencies like mine and his as most likely to commit a hate crime. Does he agree with me that publicly demonising this disadvantaged group already heavily impacted by negative interactions with the criminal justice system and disproportionately damaged by addiction and other challenges will neither assist them nor aid efforts by many community groups and others in my constituents who work to create opportunities for them? While the Conservatives were shouting down Mr McKee when he was asking his question, I think that it is a legitimate point that when it comes to any marketing, any awareness campaigns that are done, it is exceptionally important that there is no stigmatisation of any communities whatsoever. However, let us just stick to the evidence and the facts in relation to those who are victims and, indeed, anybody that is a perpetrator of hate crime. However, let us do that in a way that does not stigmatise one or other community and certainly does not pick communities against each other. The entire point of the hate crime act and, indeed, I think that most of our endeavours in this chamber around tackling hate crime are around so that we can have a more cohesive society as opposed to one that pits one community against another. I agree with Ivan McKee that we should focus on tackling stigmatisation, stigma, wherever it exists in our society. He is also right to highlight that many organisations and agencies are providing opportunities to our young people, whether it is the work of Skills Development Scotland, national training programmes and apprenticeship programmes and many others that are supporting our young people during these challenging times. First Minister, in the time that we have available for constituency and general supplementaries, I call Liam Kerr. Very grateful, Presiding Officer. Devastating figures this week revealed people can be waiting up to two years for audiology assessments at NHS Grampian. The chief executive, Adam Caldwells, laid the blame for that squarely at the door of this Government, which under funds the service and fails to properly workforce plan. How precisely does this Government intend to drive these waiting times down? When will the people of the north-east see results? First and foremost, when it comes to long waits, I reiterate what I have already said here, that anybody who is waiting far too long is not acceptable. We are working hard to recover our NHS services. In terms of Grampian itself, in 24-25, NHS front-line boards will receive increased investment of almost £558 million, a real-terms increase of almost 3 per cent. NHS Grampian is seeing £46.6 million increase in its investment, and that is the decisions that this Government is proud to take in stark contrast to the Conservatives in England. We are investing in our NHS at a time when they are choosing tax cuts for the wealthy over investment in public services. Bob Doris Presiding Officer, babies across the UK face delay in treatment for the debilitating genetic condition spiral muscular atrophy, because no newborn screening programme exists. I recently met two impacted families who want to know why the majority of European countries screen for SMA, yet we don't. It is something that I have been campaigning for for some time. It makes a real difference to the lives of newborn babies. Does the First Minister agree with me that, given that it now appears likely that there will be a UK screening pilot for SMA, that Scotland should be included? Will the First Minister meet me to discuss work that is undertaken in Scotland to prepare for such a pilot, including I think that he will welcome identifying potential partnership funds to deliver it? I do recognise the urgency that families in Scotland feel around the issue for those affected by spinal muscular atrophy. It can be absolutely devastating. I share the desire for any action that would prevent that. The UK National Screening Committee is very much in the best place to evaluate all the evidence and I welcome the in-service evaluation that NHS England is carrying out. I hope that that will bring us closer to a decision. Discussions are on-going about the potential for a Scottish specific study or for Scotland to participate in the ISE and the in-service evaluation. However, there are a number of factors that must be worked through before a final decision can be reached. Of course, I am always happy, as is the health secretary, to meet Bob Doris on this very important issue. That concludes First Minister's questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Douglas Ross. There will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.