 That concludes the debate on standing orders temporary rule change proxy voting pilot. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, and the next item of business is an urgent question. If a member wishes to seek to ask a supplementary question, they should press the request and speak button during the question or enter the letters RTS in the chat function. I call Michael Marra. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported claims that there was a cover-up in relation to the publication of the Royal College of Physicians report into breast cancer care in NHS Tayside. I reject claims that there was a cover-up in relation to the publication of the RCP report as NHS Tayside has already publicly stated. They were made aware of an error in the first version of the redacted report, which was published on the website. As soon as they were made aware of this error, it was corrected and the report was published on the NHS website. What has been to use Michael Marra's words covered up is the report author's names in line with data protection. The rest of the report, of course, is completely unchanged. There is obviously nothing in GDPR regulations that mandates the removal of authors of reports, to say otherwise as Arran nonsense. It is vital that we know the authors, as this is the second report on this issue, to be hobbled by conflicts of interest. The names were removed after that conflict of interest was put to NHS Tayside. On whose authority did this happen? Who ordered that the names of the authors of the report be hidden from the public? The greatest respect that Michael Marra should be putting those questions to NHS Tayside should be getting a satisfactory response. There is a lot that I deal with and manage throughout my day. I do not busy myself with redactions of reports from the NHS health boards. That is a job for them to do in relation to their own GDPR practices. Of course, if Michael Marra wishes to question that, he absolutely should. What I was busy doing yesterday was meeting with the clinicians in the breast cancer service when I was at nine wells, talking to them for a good hour and a half, engaging with them about the service, not looking back, because there have been a number of independent reviews and investigations, but all of us, including the clinicians around that table, are interested in looking forward in addressing some of the workforce challenges that the breast cancer service in particular is facing, and that is where my focus will be. Surely the cabinet secretary accepts that there has to be confidence in those reports issued about this critical service, particularly given that reports have previously been withdrawn. That report that we are discussing was just days ago the principal defence that the First Minister used in questions from the Labour Party regarding that service. Now the report is falling apart. There is no data in the report on dosage or any scientific citations on dosage, on consent issues that contradicts David Dunlop, NHS Tayside and the General Medical Council. It references standard dosage and nice guidelines. They do not apply in Scotland of course, but even if they did, the guideline cited do not even contain any guidance on standard dosage as the report claims. The First Minister last week told Labour that she would reflect on the case and decide if an independent inquiry would happen. Surely that case is now made beyond all reasonable doubt. Will the cabinet secretary back an inquiry today? No, I am not backing a public inquiry today. Michael Marra is not unusually indulging in some element here of hyperbole to describe the report as falling apart because some author's names have been redacted. I do not think that it is an accurate description of what has happened. There are genuine questions, I should say, and I do not fault Michael Marra on the slightest or indeed others for asking about the breast cancer service in Tayside. I think that there are genuine questions around the workforce, around the sustainability of that workforce, and I can give him chapter and verse on what Tayside and the Government have been doing to support that workforce. Accusations of cover-up and conspiracy when the reality is far more benign in relation to data protection, as NHS Tayside has said. I do not think that we do this very important issue at the justice that it deserves. Michael Marra would like to meet me. I am more than happy to do so. I am happy to go through the issues that he has raised in the chamber, some of the concerns that have been raised via clinicians that he knows that were involved in the service, via patients in Dundee. I am happy to have that conversation with him, but I do not think that we can say that the independent investigations—a number of independent investigations—have all fallen apart because some author's names have been redacted. In June, I called on you to release a buried report into allegations of bullying at NHS Tayside oncology. A second report into Tayside cancer services has been redacted and seems not to have enough detail within it. A public inquiry is needed now more than ever to restore clinicians and patients' faith in the department. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that transparency is a huge issue, not just in our NHS, but across SNP secret Scotland? Will he commit to a public inquiry? I think that Sandra Scohani, with that last comment that he makes about making a political party political issue, really just exposes his motivations around this. As opposed to the motivation being the patients and the breast cancer service, it is just a stick to try to beat the SNP over the head with, which is, as I said, betraying his real motivations. What I would say to Dr Sandra Scohani is that there have been three other published reviews into this issue, the Healthcare Improvement Scotland report in April 2019, the Scottish Government's immediate review group that reported thereafter and the independent advisory group. Now we have, of course, the RCP report. We talked about redaction. It is really important to be clear what has been redacted in NHS Tayside. I think that this is in relation to data protection law. I will question that, as Michael Marra has asked me to do. He is also free, of course, to pursue that with NHS Tayside. What has been redacted is the names of the authors, but all those reviews and reports have similar findings in relation to the clinical practice at that time. My relentless effort in relation to the breast cancer service, in particular to the cancer service more generally, is not to necessarily look back because reviews have been done. It is to look forward and see how I can support that service with the workforce that it requires. One report without right experts with no evidence references. Another report withdrawn because of a conflict of interest. Findings contradicted by experts made up numbers, patients confused, relatives of patients who have passed away confused and oncologists feeling under attack. The cabinet secretary must understand that none of this is going to go away. For the sake of the service, there must be an independent inquiry. Why cannot he agree to that? I do not know whether Willie Rennie has done this. He may well have done so. I have met with the clinicians on a number of occasions, as recently as yesterday. Yes, he is absolutely right that there has been a number of reviews. People will question those reviews. Some will disagree with their findings, some will agree with their findings. What I think is exceptionally important, having done those, and I stress this word, independent reviews over a number of years now, is so important not to look backwards but to look forward in terms of how we support that service. There are genuine challenges with the breast cancer service and the cancer service is generally in Tayside around workforce or in the oncology workforce. I have asked my senior clinicians to do some working on that. I do not think that the imperative is for the Government to look backwards. I think that our focus should be on supporting that service, and that is what I intend to do. Effective recruitment to have an effective workforce is clearly vital to delivering sustainable specialist services in Tayside and across Scotland. Could the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government and health boards, including NHS Tayside, are supporting recruitment to breast cancer services? That is again an important issue in relation to the very, very question around Tayside breast cancer services. I think that workforce is clearly a challenge in oncology. Workforce is clearly a challenge, not just in NHS Tayside. It is a challenge that is faced right across the UK in fact globally, as Emma Harper will know only too well. I know that NHS Tayside has been working exceptionally hard around the workforce issues. I am happy to report the recent appointment of a local consultant in NHS Tayside. That will help to reduce the number of patients around about seven a week having to travel to other cancer centres for treatment. I also asked one of my senior clinicians to chair a national oncology task force. They will be providing and have provided me with some additional solutions and recommendations around the oncology workforce across Scotland. We will take forward those recommendations. We will work closely with Tayside. I know that they are engaged with recruitment agencies right across the UK in fact globally to try to bring as many of expertise, oncology experts, to the service in Tayside. I will keep the member and the chamber updated on that progress. The cabinet secretary will be aware that this is just the latest in a long list of events that call in to question the leadership of NHS Tayside and cause people to question the care that they might receive. That is not good for any of our public services. He has also indicated that he does not think that a public inquiry is necessary. I think that many of us disagree with him. If not an independent investigation, what kind of open, transparent and independent process does he consider necessary to restore people's trust and confidence in the service? There has been independent investigations. She has asked me what kind of independent investigations. There has been a number of independent investigations, including an RCP report. That is independent of Government. The report is independent of the health board. The Royal College is a very respected organisation. Those findings can be read in detail. I am happy to provide Maggie Chapman a copy of that report if she has not seen it. My focus is really on looking forward in relation to how I support the breast cancer service and the cancer services at Tayside, as opposed to looking back over the independent reviews that have been done. I go back to what I said to Willie Rennie. In almost any review that is conducted, independent or otherwise, people will agree that some will disagree with the recommendations or the analysis of that review. It is exceptionally important that we objectively recognise the independence of those reviews, the clinical expertise involved in those reviews, and we move forward as opposed to look back. That concludes the urgent question. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I would invite George Adam minister to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. There are four questions that we put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 7093.2, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 7093 in the name of Mary McCallan, on COP 27 outcomes be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a brief pause to allow members to access the digital voting system.