 Y Llywyddyn gwybod gennych y cwestiwn? Y cwestiwn y llyfr yna'r cwestiwn yn ymlaen i'ch gwybodaeth yng Nghymru. Mae wedi gael Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A at the weekend, SNP members met in Dundee to have an independence conference. During Hamza Yousland's speech, a brave woman spoke out, Theresa Mallott protested on behalf of herself and a group of more than 100 other patients ddysgu'r surgeon Sam Eljamel. Dr Eljamel leftei NHST side patients who came for help, scarred, broken and devastated. Teresa wants answers. She is demanding a public inquiry, but when Hamza Yousaf was health secretary, he refused to grant one. So can he tell Teresa and all the victims of Dr Eljamel why he refused to grant that public inquiry? I have agreed to meet Ms Mallett due to meet her, I believe, early next week. When I was cabinet secretary for health and social care, I also met a number of other victims of Professor Eljamel. Let me start this answer by reiterating just how much sympathy I have for the trauma that they have undoubtedly suffered at the hands of Professor Eljamel. Let me also put on record that a number of MSPs from across the back benches have raised issues on behalf of their constituents, who again have been traumatised by the disgraceful actions of Professor Eljamel, including his own back bench colleague, Liz Smith, as well. I would say to Douglas Ross that, as First Minister and indeed Michael Matheson, as Cabinet Secretary for Health, we will continue to not just engage with all those who have been affected by Professor Eljamel's disgraceful actions, but we will seek to get the answers that they want. That goes to the heart of why a public inquiry has not been completely ruled off the table. The reason why we have not committed to a public inquiry on the issue of Professor Eljamel's actions is twofold. First and foremost, we all know in this chamber that a public inquiry can take some years, rightly so, understandably so. Therefore, is there a way of getting the answers that the victims of Professor Eljamel want? Can we get that sooner? Can we get it quicker, as opposed to often the years and years that it can take for a public inquiry? That is the first reason why we have not instructed a public inquiry. The second reason, of course, is that Professor Eljamel is not in this country. He is practicing, I believe, as a doctor elsewhere overseas abroad. The likelihood of Professor Eljamel, I think, cooperating with any public inquiry is very, very low. Therefore, would a public inquiry be able to get the answers that the victims like Ms Mallett and others are seeking? I will end where I have started. A public inquiry has not been ruled completely off the table, but what we are seeking to do with all the victims of Eljamel is, can we get them the answers that they deserve in a way that is quicker and more expeditious than going through a public inquiry? If I can take the two points that the First Minister has mentioned, first fall with the pace of a public inquiry, surely the quicker it is actioned and starts, the quicker we can start to get answers for victims like Theresa and so many others. Secondly, we should not be letting Dr Eljamel off by assuming that he will not respond or co-operate. He is a key part of this, but there are others at NHS Tayside and the victims that we need to hear from. Ms Mallett told the First Minister on Saturday that she wants people responsible to be under oath, so victims might finally get answers that I think that the First Minister and I both agree that they deserve. The First Minister also mentioned the cross-party support that has actioned this with the current health secretary. They met with Michael Matheson in April. He promised an update by the end of May. We are now at the end of June and my colleague Liz Smith has written to him twice in the last week seeking that update. This morning he responded to saying that he is currently too busy to meet with the cross-party group but will look to do so in the coming weeks. Surely, given the allegations that came to light, more than a decade ago, we cannot wait any longer, so can the First Minister ensure that his health secretary responds to all MSPs who are concerned about this immediately? As Douglas Ross referenced in his question, Michael Matheson has obviously engaged with cross-party MSPs. I have engaged and, indeed, health secretaries before me have engaged in this issue, not just with cross-party MSPs but with the victims of Professor L Jamell. It would also be fair to say that a range of actions have been taken to try to learn the lessons from what has happened in this traumatic and tragic case and to hopefully prevent another case like this happening. However, it should be made clear that the responsibility for the actions of L Jamell sitting with Professor L Jamell himself, a disgraced surgeon. It is right that NHS Tayside looks to learn lessons, but I do not think that we should ever, and I know that Douglas Ross is not doing this, ever look to abdicate L Jamell of the actions that he was responsible for. Douglas Ross will undoubtedly be aware that review was commissioned by the Scottish Government, including detailed reviews of the care that was received by a couple of victims of L Jamell who have spoken out very publicly. I applaud them for doing so, Mr Kelly and Ms Rose. That was undertaken by two independent consultant neurosurgeons, and the recommendations of those actions have been accepted by NHS Tayside. The reason why I mentioned that review is that there may be, again, an option short of a public inquiry that will allow an independent review into cases to look and to explore what more can be done, what could be learnt from what is a tragic episode for all those who have been affected. In terms of Douglas Ross's direct question, of course, Michael Matheson absolutely will respond—I know that this is the last of course FMQs of the session—that we are going to continue, of course, all of us, I suspect, work right throughout the course of the summer. I would expect Michael Matheson, he will, of course, make himself available where he can to continue to engage, not just with cross-party MSPs, but also with the victims of Professor Eldermail. It is indeed the last FMQs of the session. I have many members who are keen to put questions to the First Minister today. Douglas Ross. I stress again that this is an issue that Scottish Conservatives Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members met with the Health Secretary about in April. We are promised an update in May. I have been told this morning that it will now be several more weeks. There is an urgency here, and I hope that the Health Secretary and the First Minister can agree to update the concerned members today. Give them that update today before we leave for the summer recess, and then there can be further updates through the summer, because there are so many unanswered questions here. The First Minister mentioned two victims and said that NHS Tayside had accepted the outcome of the independent review of their cases, but the victims have not. One of the patients, Jules Rose, who the First Minister mentioned, said, I have still not got answers two years on from the independent review of my case commissioned by the Scottish Government. How can I be reassured that the new independent review will help patients? That is what they are saying about the current process being suggested by the First Minister. A freedom of information request published by the Scottish Government this morning contains minutes of a meeting held between NHS Tayside and Dr Eljamel on 3 June 2013. During that meeting, Dr Eljamel seems to have got off practically scot-free. Junior doctors are blamed in this for mistakes made by Dr Eljamel, and the health board seems to accept his heartless promise to, and I quote, maintain the quality of his service. That is just scandalous. When he was health secretary, did he demand to know from NHS Tayside what he knew and when he knew it? Yes, I had a range of conversations with NHS Tayside, including with the chief executive and the chair on the issue of Professor Eljamel. Of course, Douglas Ross will be a well-aware and I am happy to ensure that he gets a written update in this regard of the actions that were taken forward by NHS Tayside. I am not standing here, I suspect. In fact, I know that the chair and the chief executive of NHS Tayside would not say that there were not lessons to be learned from the tragic case that has affected so many victims, including Miss Rose and Mr Kelly, to patients whom I have met and whom we will continue to engage with. Of the specific issues around engagement with patients, there has been an established process for former patients of Professor Eljamel to contact NHS Tayside. There is also an independent mediator that has been appointed to work with NHS Tayside and two former patients whose experiences were reviewed by the Scottish Government and two independent consultant neurosurgeon. That engagement with patients absolutely will continue. As I say, there are some outstanding questions that I know that patients will not answer. I do believe that we can work with NHS Tayside to try to get those answers. There is a request being made by a number of MSPs by Douglas Ross for a public inquiry. It is not ruled out off the table, not taken off the table, but I do think that there may be other ways to get the answers that Miss Mallet, Mr Kelly, Miss Rose and many other victims of Eljamel absolutely deserve. Douglas Ross, the treatment information request that was published this morning by the Scottish Government also shows that complaints were mounting from victims, but in many cases were dismissed. Complaints were growing as well from NHS Tayside staff, who appear to have originally raised the alarm back in 2009, but healthcare professionals say that they were warned not to speak out. One whistleblower said, I did raise concerns at the time, but I was shut down. It went all the way to the board. They knew about it. The First Minister is saying that a public inquiry is not off the table, but he needs to be clearer. He needs to say that it is on the table, it is going to happen. The actions of Dr Eljamel ruined people's lives, but the actions of the health board suggest a cover-up at the highest level. First Minister, does not this simply demand a full public inquiry? I will take the points that Douglas Ross raises in terms of the whistleblowing processes in 2009. I think that, by any objective observation, there have been improvements in the whistleblowing processes. I have met myself when I was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care with whistleblowing champions in our territorial health boards. There have been improvements in the whistleblowing process since 2009, since that particular statement was made by the member of staff. My predecessor has often said, and I will reiterate that whistleblowers can and should go through the appropriate whistleblowing route, but if they ever want to contact the Government directly about concerns that they have, they can absolutely do that, too. We take issues of whistleblowing extremely seriously, indeed, regardless of which health board is affected. I will end where I started in terms of the questioning from Douglas Ross. That is an incredibly serious issue. It is an issue where individuals have been left utterly traumatised. We will work with those individuals, those victims, those survivors in order to try to get them the answers that they absolutely deserve. Of course, a public inquiry is not ruled off the table, but let us look at how we can get them the answers that they deserve as quickly as we possibly can. This week, the UK Covid inquiry has started to take evidence from Scottish Government witnesses. It is the first we are hearing from the Scottish Government in any public inquiry about the response to the Covid pandemic. Three years on from the start of the pandemic, bereaved families are still waiting for answers. However, here in Scotland, families are going to have to wait even longer. Last year, the chair of the Scottish Covid inquiry and its legal team walked out. We still have little idea of when the inquiry will begin to question ministers and officials, let alone when it will conclude. So, First Minister, will grieving families get the answers that they deserve by the end of this Parliament? I thank Anasawa for raising what is an incredibly important issue, indeed. He will be looking at and observing the UK Covid inquiry, for which, of course, there are a number of Scottish witnesses in front of the UK inquiry today. Anasawa, who is an experienced member of this Parliament, will know that it would be inappropriate for me, as a First Minister, to interfere or intervene in what is an independent public inquiry. Of course, we want the Covid inquiry to be delivered at speed, but what I will say to Anasawa is that, having met bereaved families myself, I can completely understand why they want the Scottish Covid inquiry to move at pace. It is so important that the Covid inquiry takes the necessary steps. It has to get those answers in a transparent way and manner. The final thing that I will say to Anasawa, which I am happy to repeat time and time again, whatever we can do to co-operate with the inquiry from the Scottish Government, we absolutely will. I hear what the First Minister said, but this is important for thousands of families who have lost a loved one to NHS and care staff and everyone across Scotland who will be frustrated by the Scottish inquiry running behind, because we must learn the lessons of the pandemic. However, the inquiry's conclusions will only be as good as the evidence that it receives. Over the past few weeks, people have been horrified by the UK Government's decision to withhold evidence from the UK inquiry. In Scotland, the Scottish inquiry team issued do not destroy letters to public bodies, including the Scottish Government, last August. It made clear that all documents, including emails, texts or WhatsApp messages, should be retained and that any destruction of those messages is a criminal offence. Can the First Minister confirm that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction? Will he give a guarantee that all requested emails, texts or WhatsApp messages will be handovered over in full to the inquiry? Of course, it is important that I abide by the rules of the UK public inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry. Section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2005 gives the chair alone the responsibility to decide how an inquiry should operate. It is therefore a matter for the independent inquiry chairs to make decisions as to what material the request from the Scottish Government or, indeed, from other participants. Both inquiries have taken the decision again—the independent decision, not the decision that I interfere in whatsoever—but both inquiries have taken the decision not to publish details of the request that they are making to participants. However, all participants, including the Scottish Government, have been asked by the inquiry not to share the content of requests that they receive. Of course, the Scottish Government will comply with the request, but to ensure that there is simply no doubt whatsoever that any material that is asked for—whatsapp messages, emails, signal, telegram or whatever—is asked for or requested will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over to them in full. That is really significant. To confirm, the First Minister has told us that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction, and that all ministers and officials, past and present, will hand over all evidence in full with omission and evasion—as I say, a really significant intervention from the First Minister. Covid took a heavy toll on everyone across this country and we continue to feel its impact. The least that we can expect is that, when grieving families come looking for answers, this SNP Government provides them. We know, sadly, that this is a Government that is famed for a culture of secrecy and cover-up. Last week, Dr Lisa Mitchell Casey, the lawyer for the bereaved families across Scotland, said this at the UK Covid inquiry. No person, no institution, no matter how powerful, whether it be in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, Westminster or Holyrood, can obstruct the search for truth. Will the First Minister commit to writing to me and other members of this Parliament, outlining what steps the Scottish Government has taken to ensure that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy order and how this data is being retained and how we hand it over to the inquiry? That question from Anasawa is because he did not expect me to of course say that I would fully comply with the Covid public inquiry, so he was not able to adapt his second question as a result of the answer. I am happy to reiterate what I have already said to Anasawa. That is a really important issue, so the member may not want to hickle this point. I think that it is really important for me to absolutely reiterate that we have, of course, and have had a long-standing policy on retention of documents, and not just documents, in fact, as per email or written correspondence, but including social media messages, so I am more than happy for that guidance to be shared. I am more than happy to write to Anasawa or any other member who has an interest around how we comply with those various guidelines that are very much in place. What I would also say to Anasawa is that this is absolutely about the bereaved family. That is why the Government has met the families who have been bereaved by Covid. We will co-operate fully with that inquiry. Anasawa suggests that we are not transparent. I would remind him that it is this Government who instructed that public inquiry, and I would also remind Anasawa—in fact, it was my predecessor—who stood up every single day during that pandemic to face questions from the press in order to communicate as openly and transparently as possible. We are transparent as a Government. We will continue to be transparent. If I could stop you there, could we please stop having conversations across the aisles? It makes it very difficult to hear. We will continue to co-operate fully with both public inquires. We will be meeting a few times throughout the course of the summer recess. I am very grateful for that reply. Reinforced, autoclaved, aerated concrete is a light and bubbly material that was used in public sector construction for decades. Think of the inside of an aero bar and you get the idea. In February, NHS Scotland issued a safety action notice. It warned that roofs, walls and flooring made of this material are, I quote, at risk of catastrophic structural failure, which could occur suddenly and without warning. A school roof has already collapsed in Kent. Now, Liberal Democrat research, published in The Times, has established that this concrete has so far been found by at least four Scottish health boards and in 37 schools up and down our country. It is above patients and it is above pupils. I am not trying to frighten people here, but we need to identify the buildings that risk and fix them. That could cost tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. Will the First Minister establish a national fund to help hard-up health boards and councils to make those buildings safe? I appreciate and thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising an important issue around aerated concrete. What I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton before discussions on any fund that may or may not be necessary is really important, as Alex Cole-Hamilton alludes to in his question, that we understand the scale and the scope of the problem and the challenge that we are facing. Therefore, I am happy to write to Alex Cole-Hamilton with more detail, but I will give him one example in relation to health boards. NHS, as I am sure, is already conducting a review into the issue. It is quite an intrusive review to understand the nature of what we are dealing with and the scope of what we are dealing with. Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right to raise an important issue. I will give consideration to the matter that he raises around a fund, but before doing so, what I would say to Alex Cole-Hamilton is really important and imperative, in fact. It is vital that we understand the scope and the nature of what we are dealing with and, thereafter, I am happy to give consideration to Alex Cole-Hamilton's suggestion. I will write to Alex Cole-Hamilton with details of the reviews that we are conducting in buildings that we are responsible for. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to help to raise awareness of the importance of stem cell donation and the treatment of blood cancer and blood disorders. I fully agree that increasing awareness of the importance of stem cell donations is absolutely vital, especially in those where more donors are needed to sign up, including men and those from BAME communities, as well as myself who have been in the register for stem cell donors for nearly two decades. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of stem cell donations and continues to promote them alongside key partners such as Anthony Nolan through a number of initiatives. We have included information on our organ donation Scotland website, which provides the public with information on how they can register as a stem cell donor. I encourage everybody to look at that website and to register. Last year, we also launched our updated school resource to educate children and young people about organ tissue and stem cell donation. Nationally, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and Police Scotland have partnered with Anthony Nolan to promote stem cell donation and encourage staff, young people and school people to register as a potential donor. Lastly, our new cancer strategy, which will work towards improving cancer survival and providing excellent equitable access to care. Bill Kidd. I thank the First Minister for that reply and join him in welcoming the partnerships that take place with the Anthony Nolan trust. I note that he mentioned the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Will he also join me in congratulating the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on receiving the Shidley Nolan special recognition award for its efforts to raise awareness and inspire others to sign up to the stem cell register for the Anthony Nolan trust? I absolutely will. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service deserve every bit of credit for the excellent partnership work that they do with the Anthony Nolan trust. I absolutely echo Bill Kidd's words and I once again congratulate the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on their well-deserved award. I think that I should also, Presiding Officer, take the opportunity to recognise the tireless work of Bill Kidd in highlighting the importance of stem cell donation. That was rightly recognised, in fact, by the awards that he was rightly recognised as political supporter of the year. Anthony Nolan's support awards are very well deserved indeed. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the recommendations in the report, the Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review, by Professor Alison Britton. I first put on record my thanks to Jackson Carlaw and others, but it is important to recognise Jackson Carlaw's tireless efforts in standing up for and advocating on behalf of those women who have suffered as a result of transvaginal mesh implants. I am grateful to Professor Britton and her team for undertaking what I don't think I doubt for a minute is a very thorough and insightful piece of work. I express my thanks to the patients who took part in the review. I sincerely hope that they found it beneficial. I don't need to say to Jackson Carlaw or anybody else in this chamber how traumatic and re-traumatising it can be for those survivors to continue to tell their story. We have taken many steps already that address a number of Professor Britton's findings. We have introduced new training for GPs about mesh, we have improved information for patients, about the specialist mesh, removal service in Glasgow and the chief medical officer continues to champion shared decision making through his realistic medicine initiative. However, we will of course now study the report in great detail and consider what further steps have to be taken. Jackson Carlaw. I thank the First Minister for that and for his engagement with the issue. I wonder if he would commit when the Government has responded in full to the report to a full chamber debate in the autumn for us to consider it, but can I ask him to react to the observation by Professor Britton in the introduction and overview to this report where she comments in a parallel report that she was invited to undertake by the now deputy First Minister in 2017, published in 2018. She says that the report highlighted a number of failings and made recommendations on how independent reviews should be conducted in the future. Despite being well received to date, none of the 46 recommendations have been implemented by the Scottish Government. He has referred to the work that colleagues across the chamber have done over the last decade with these women. Does he understand their dismay and frustration that none of 46 recommendations made five years ago have been implemented? Can I ask him what will he do to rectify that? I am very happy for the Government to commit to bringing a debate forward to this chamber in order to discuss and engage again in this important issue once we are ready to respond to the latest review. In terms of the 2018 investigative review, we did accept and agreed with a vast majority of Professor Britton's conclusions. Those recommendations have already been reflected in a number of inquiries and reviews that have been established in recent years. We are also developing guidance to support inquiries and reviews that will very much build upon Professor Britton's recommendations and hope to publish that shortly. I am happy to communicate with Professor Britton directly to give Jackson Carlaw and her and anybody else who has some concerns around those recommendations. However, I can give an absolute commitment that not only have we agreed, but a number of those recommendations have been already implemented in reviews that we have taken forward. The First Minister will be very much aware of my support for a number of my constituents who have supported the horrors of transversional mesh implants. The women have my unwavering support in their efforts to firstly have the mesh removed and secondly seek answers to why the NHS services have often seemed to work against them instead of for them. I am not understanding what the First Minister has said today. Can I ask the First Minister to ensure that the report is considered and responded to as soon as possible, given the continued difficulties that many women in my constituent across Scotland are facing at present, but also because of the lack of trust that many women have had in the NHS, particularly with regard to mesh services? I thank Stuart McMillan and again recognise the tireless advocacy that he has done on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the implantation of transvaginal mesh. For me, it is incredibly important to reiterate that I pay tribute to the women who have come forward bravely over the years to tell their story because Stuart McMillan is absolutely right. Many of them have used words like gaslight. They have not been believed that they do not have trust in the authorities and the NHS in the various processes that we have brought forward. It is so important that everything that we do, we bear in mind that lesson that we ensure that we give the survivors, in those cases, trust in the processes that we are bringing forward. I have met many women, some of them constituents of mine, others right across the country who have suffered as a result of transvaginal mesh being implanted. As Stuart McMillan asks, we will respond as soon as we possibly can. As I have said in my response to Jackson Caller, I think that it would be a good idea that he suggests of bringing a debate to this Parliament so that we can have a full and frank discussion and debate about it. The review also recommends that all information on mesh is drawn into a single website to keep patients informed. Will the First Minister commit today to publishing waiting times on the website to inform patients about how long it will take to get their treatment, given that some are being forced to wait as long as 448 days? Will he take action to end these unacceptable waiting times as a matter of urgency? I am more than happy to look at what more we can do to be transparent as we are around waiting times. When I look at, for example, the Glasgow mesh service, there is simply no doubt that that has been affected because of the pandemic, and surgery was paused for a time due to particularly Covid and winter pressures. However, I was looking at the Glasgow mesh service latest data on surgeries since they have been restarted. That service will soon be able to operate within 12 weeks of the patient and their clinician deciding upon the course of treatment. We are making progress around some of the treatments that are available, but I will look into the issue of transparency around waiting times and report back to the member. To ask the First Minister whether he can provide an update on the Scottish Government's commitment to roll out universal free school meals amid concerns that there will be further delays to the expansion of universal free school meal provision for primary six and sevens, and that no progress has been made on the Scottish Government's commitment to establish a secondary school pilot scheme. I am very proud of the progress that the SNP-led Scottish Government has made in the universal roll-out free school meals P1 to P5—maybe a lesson for other political parties right across the UK—to look towards Scotland to see what we have done. I can give a commitment to Monica Lennon and for all those who are interested that we are absolutely committed to the roll-out of universal free school meals in primary schools. As we have said it previously, the next phase will be to all primary sixes and seven pupils in receipt of the Scottish child payment. That is the next phase of that universal expansion. We are also committed to delivering on a pilot of free universal school meals in secondary schools, and we continue to work closely with our delivery partners, including local authorities, on our expansion programme, which includes considering the appropriate timescales for roll-out. Monica Lennon The Scottish Government was leading the rest of the UK on universal free school meal roll-out, but the work has stalled, First Minister, and we are falling behind. Under Nicola Sturgeon, the P6 and 7 expansion was delayed, and last year's announcement to pilot provision in secondary schools has amounted to nothing. Close working would suggest communication. I have effluied every local authority. There has not even been a phone call from the Scottish Government to any school or council in Scotland about that. Instead of prioritising hungry children, the Government approached COSLA at the start of this month to broker further delays. Astonishingly, councils are now being warned that the full roll-out in primary schools may not happen within this Parliament. Children are going hungry today, and they cannot wait until 2026. Will the Scottish Government keep its promise to Scotland's children, and can the First Minister guarantee that the roll-out will be delivered by the end of this Parliament? I would love to see the evidence for Monica Lennon's claim that we are falling behind other parts of the UK. It is simply untrue that we are leading the rest of the UK when it comes to provision of free-school meals. If I look at the uptake, for example, in 2022, over 215,000 free school lunches were provided to children and young people. That is an increase from the previous high of 194,000 free lunches provided in 2016. Registrations for free school meals have reached the highest level as our free school meals expansion programme continues. Yes, there are challenges in relation to the roll-out. We know that there are challenges around, for example, the capital infrastructure that is required in order to ensure that we can progress that universal roll-out. When it comes to ensuring that we tackle poverty and child poverty—in particular, I would remind Monica Lennon—it is the SNP-led Scottish Government that introduced the Scottish child payment. It is estimated that, through the actions that we have taken with this limited measure of self-government, it is estimated that we will lift 90,000 children out of poverty. It is the SNP-led Scottish Government that, for example, has scrapped tuition fees—something that Labour Party has viewed—and, of course, it is now the Labour Party in the UK that has now said that it will not progress with free school meal provision in the rest of the UK. Instead of chiding the Scottish Government for what it is doing, Monica Lennon might want to speak to her own party and get them to follow the SNP's lead. I am going to take Brian Whittle out for a brief supplementary. Then we will move on to constituency and general supplementaries. I wonder if the First Minister agrees with me that if we were to offer preschool activities along with a healthy breakfast, we would be directly tackling the attainment gap, poor behaviour in class, hunger, poor mental and physical health, and that that kind of intervention would be a proactive step in tackling real issues that I have not been efficiently dealt with for many years. We have already made provision when it comes to children's activities. We are also, of course, committed to developing plans to deliver free breakfast to all primary and special school children as well, so we are absolutely committed to doing all of those measures and progressing them as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have increased our funding to local authorities this financial year. What makes that job remarkably more difficult is when the UK Government continues to cut our budget. We move to constituency and general supplementaries. I am sure that the First Minister would agree with me that it was very welcome to public health Scotland's report this week saying how beneficial the minimum unit of pricing of alcohol has been and how lives have been saved. Would he be able to say anything about increasing the price from 50 pence perhaps to 65 pence, or does he think that the UK Government might veto that with the Internal Market Act 2020? John Mason makes a very good point. Indeed, that is simply no doubt, I think, in anyone's mind that if the Internal Market Act 2020 had been in place when we first introduced minimum unit pricing, the UK Government would have struck it down. Simply no doubt whatsoever that that would have been the case. What I will say to John Mason in response to his first question is that I am really pleased to see the progress that is being made through the introduction of minimum unit pricing. It is quite literally saving lives. The only tragedy is, my goodness, if we were able to have implemented that policy earlier, if it had not had to be dragged through the courts, how many more lives could have absolutely been saved. John Mason will be aware of the review work that is under way. It is so important, given the legal challenges that we have had previously, so important that we allow that review work to take place so that we have an absolutely robust evidence base for any decisions that are made around any increase in the minimum unit price. The First Minister will be aware of the recent decision taken by North Lanarkshire Council to let go of 130 teachers before the summer holidays. Education chiefs emailed 80 primary and 52nd teachers last Friday to tell them that they could no longer offer them temporary or fixed-term contracts from August. The EIS has rightly condemned this decision as many teachers will be looking for jobs over the summer holidays. The council has responded indeed saying that the Scottish Government funding for teacher recruitment has fallen substantially. In the last two years alone, there has been a £1.8 million reduction. First Minister cuts to education budgets means cuts to teacher numbers. Can I ask what reassurance he can provide to the 130 teachers who will be really concerned and upset by the decision taken by North Lanarkshire Council? I'm happy to correct the record, if I'm wrong, of course, but I believe that the council is being propped up by the Conservative Party, and Megan Gallacher may want to have a word with her Conservative colleagues about their abysmal decision to let teachers go. What I would say from a Scottish Government perspective, we are, of course, increasing resources available to local government by more than £793 million. That represents a real-terms increase of £376 million, or indeed of 3 per cent. I would urge any local authority, regardless of whoever is in administration, to engage with schools, to engage with teachers in relation to their employment. However, as I have already said to Brian Whittle, what is not helped, of course, is by our public finances being decimated by the Westminster Government. That will not help us to fund local government at one penny. Can I ask Mr Kerr to please resist any temptation to contribute, particularly where it is not necessarily courteous? I draw members' attention to my register of interest as a member of Unison Scotland. Unison is outside Parliament today because the college sector is in crisis, one felt most deeply by the staff facing compulsory redundancy in the city of Glasgow College. After meeting the principal last week, I remain deeply concerned about the cuts, but also about the process to come to the decision to make redundancies. Can I ask the First Minister will he personally intervene and encourage more scrutiny of that decision? Will he meet union members outside Parliament today to hear directly how bad things have got for colleges, staff and students? What I would say to Pam Duncan Glancy is that I have already met trade unions, including, for example, the UCU, who are at a roundtable discussion with me that I co-chaired in the trade unions, the STUC. I have been engaging with trade unions and I know the situation that Pam Duncan Glancy describes. The Minister for Higher Education and Further Education wrote to college principals reminding them of the fact that, while those are decisions for the colleges to take, it is so important that fair work is the guiding principle whenever it comes to those discussions. I will receive an update from the minister and, of course, while those are decisions for colleges to make, I will remind them again today, publicly, that fair work must be at the heart of every decision that they take. A recent serious fire at the abandoned promo factory in Springburn left local communities for two days enduring stifling smoke and fumes and firefighters putting their lives at risk. The first service informed me that they believed that the site is a major hazard and a danger to anyone entering it. Given the scale of the site, it cannot possibly be made safe. Can I ask the First Minister that, given that there may be insufficient powers to allow the local authorities to effectively intervene to get the site owners to make the complex as safe as possible and ultimately clear the site? Will the Scottish Government meet me to discuss what powers may exist or, indeed, which further powers may be required in this place to the action on sites such as Promat and Springburn to better protect our communities? I am grateful to Bob Doris for raising the issue of the Promat site in Springburn. I will await further details from Bob Doris but, in response to his direct question, I am more than happy for the Scottish Government the relevant minister to engage with Bob Doris to see if there is anything further that we can do to address the issues that Bob Doris rightly raises in the chamber. Miles Briggs. It is now over nine weeks since the Edinburgh Tram inquiry was sent to the printers more than nine years after it was announced in three years since it stopped hearing evidence. It has cost Scottish taxpayers over £13 million, including the chair being paid over £1 million. I know that the First Minister cannot today comment on the findings of that inquiry, but can I ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government will agree to Parliament debating the inquiry findings when published in Government time and what review will now be undertaken into the delivery of this inquiry, as it is vital that lessons are learned for future public inquiries and what has gone so wrong in delivering this one? I would just remind Miles Briggs of the fact that this is an independent public inquiry. I am not able to interfere or intervene when it comes to the timescale of that public inquiry. I have seen the same press reports that Miles Briggs has seen. All I would say is that when that Trams inquiry is ready to be published, there will certainly be no objection from the Scottish Government from me as First Minister to get that public inquiry published as soon as possible. I think that it should be published as soon as it is absolutely ready for it to be published, but it is so important that when it comes to that public inquiry, that independent public inquiry, neither myself nor anybody in the Scottish Government is seen to interfere or intervene in any way whatsoever. My constituent, Windy, has struggled with joint pain for several years. She was finally added to the orthopedic outpatient waiting list in June 2022. Last month, it confirmed that she was on the waiting list for a need replacement. The wait is currently two and a half years. This would take Windy's overall waiting time to over five years. Windy is in constant pain and her quality of life has been seriously impacted by this. Does the First Minister think this wait time is acceptable and can he advise what the Scottish Government is doing to achieve its legal guarantee of 12 weeks for inpatient treatment under the Patients' Right Scotland Act? I can say directly to Foisal Chaudry the way that he describes is not acceptable. I am more than happy for Foisal Chaudry to contact me to see if there is anything further that can be done in Windy's particular case. I know that he understands that there is no doubt at all that health services across the UK, across Europe and across the world have all been affected by the shock of the global pandemic, the biggest shock that the NHS has ever faced in its nearly 75-year existence. I am more than happy to write to Foisal Chaudry in detail about the many actions that we are taking. It is fair to say that when it comes to wait over two years, a number of cases have made significant improvements. If I look at inpatient day cases, it is just one example. The numbers waiting longer than two years for inpatient day case treatment were reduced by 27 per cent since targets were announced. In terms of outpatients, the numbers waiting over two years are down 19 per cent on the last quarter. We are making progress, but it is clearly in the case that Foisal Chaudry has raised. I am happy to look at that and see if there is anything that we can do to help us to constitu. The First Minister will be aware of the Court of Appeals ruling this morning that the UK Government's plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda to make their applications while being held in detention centres are unlawful. The plan to remove some of the most vulnerable people, women and children among them, was always immoral and unjust. Today we learn that it is also illegal. Does the First Minister agree that this means that the Home Secretary, who has dreamt of such flights to Rwanda, must resign? The Parliament's standing orders provide that First Minister's question time gives members the opportunity to put questions to the First Minister on matters that fall within the responsibility of the First Minister and, of course, the responsibilities of the Government. I am not entirely clear that question met the requirement of standing orders, and that concludes First Minister's questions. First Minister's questions is concluded. There will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so before the next item begins.