 Dyma o ddanion y dynifatol, ac mae'r cyfrifiadau gwleithwyr gwneud eich taith ar ddysgu, cyflei Llyfrin D totallyr yn ei ddechrau. Mae'n ddau ddysgu i gyfrydd yma yn ddodd yn y cyfrifiadau. Felly mae'n ddiddor i'ch trofwyr yma i gair drosodol, byddai'r cyfrifiadau yn danntio i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu. Poliwch arall wedi bringengog iawn wedi gweld yr ydym yn ymgyrchol â dweud. Mae Gwrth Rhyw Llywodraeth wedi cyfleiol iawn i gŵr ar gyfer hy contracts am gyfer hynny. Gallwn Pwysgol dddeptyneth sy'n gyda'r cyfrifiadau gyda'r cyfrifiadau ymgyrchol a nhw'n gyfrifiadau ymgyrchol. Fodd rydyn ni'n ysgawad yr ydw i gyfrifiadau sydd am y gyfrifiadau ymgyrchol, is the fastest way to clear all victims here in Scotland, and will he confirm to Parliament how he'll work with the UK Government to overturn these convictions as quickly as possible? Presiding Officer, can I first and foremost pay tribute to Alan Bates and all the other hundreds of campaigners as sub-postmasters, all of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmasters who campaign tirelessly over decades to ensure that they receive justice, justice they are still waiting for. Of course, it should not have taken a TV drama for action to have to be taken. Douglas Ross is right that there is a need for reflection for all of those involved. The post office is of course a wholly reserved institution, which is accountable to UK Government ministers. The difference, as Douglas Ross rightly points out here, is that prosecutions in Scotland have been taken forward by the independent crown and procurator fiscal service. I spoke to the law advocate just this morning and this list of general this morning, and she is willing to provide a briefing to any MSPs that have an interest in terms of the crown zone handling of these issues. To answer Douglas Ross's question directly, the justice secretary has written to her counterpart in the UK Government to say that we are willing to work with the UK Government in relation to legislation that it is bringing forward to overturn wrongful convictions. I think that the quickest way and fastest way to do that probably would be through the LCM process, but there are a number of complexities to have to navigate and to have to work through for some of the reasons that Douglas Ross has already highlighted. We will, of course, engage immediately and urgently, as we already have done with the UK Government, but what is absolutely certain, whether you are in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom and have been impacted and affected by this, is that sub-postmasters have waited far too long for justice. They should not have to wait a moment longer. I join the First Minister in congratulating Alan Bates and others, as I did in the House of Commons earlier this week. Victims and the public will rightly ask why it has taken so long for this deep injustice to be corrected, and multiple political parties and many individuals should have and could have acted sooner. Blame starts with the post office, but people are understandably looking at what others could have done. Scotland's Crown Office was made aware of concerns with the horizon system in 2013, more than 10 years ago. Dr Andrew Tickell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said this week, and I quote, The revelation that the Crown Office knew of problems is huge. He continued, Did they stop prosecuting? Did it occur to them that any of their cases before 2013 might now be unsafe because of these uncertainties? He added that Scotland was just at the beginning of addressing the miscarriage of justice while England and Wales were much much further down the line. I am just quoting a law professor, so I am simply asking the First Minister— Let's hear Mr Ross. Does he agree that the process here in Scotland needs to be accelerated? I would say to Douglas Ross first and foremost that there is a public inquiry, of course, under way, but it has been well established that the inaccurate data presented by the Post Office is at the very heart of the scandal. The Post Office, of course, is accountable and has been accountable to the UK Government and ministers over many successive UK Governments, so that will undoubtedly be a matter of interrogation and questioning by the public inquiry. In terms of the Crown Office, and I reiterate the point that Lord Advocate is willing to meet with members of the Scottish Parliament to talk them through what the Crown has done, because those are independent functions of the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service. My understanding is that, when the Crown Office was told in 2013 by Post Office slisters about the challenges around horizon evidence, it continued that dialogue with the Post Office, but immediately in September 2013 it provided guidance to every Scottish prosecutor at the earliest possible point in time to treat cases reported by the Post Office on their individual regard to their facts and circumstances and evidence that did not rely upon horizon. They then spent the next couple of years between 2013 and 2015 and continued dialogue with the Post Office to try to get further detail around the evidential basis. To conclude the position that Post Office 2015 with regard to assurances provided is that, in 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service issued instructions to all prosecutors not to proceed with any Post Office case in which a sufficency of evidence was dependent on evidence from the horizon system. No case is prosecuted effectively from 2015 where the evidence was dependent on evidence from the horizon system. In terms of where we are in the process of the Scottish Criminal Case review commission, what I am willing to do is work with the UK Government to look at a process that, effectively on mass, seeks to overturn any wrongful convictions. The actions of the Post Office were despicable and probably criminal, but the actions of the Crown Office here in Scotland should trouble us greatly. There was a sudden spike in cases involving people who were some of the most trusted in their communities, but the Crown Office proceeded anyway. That was until 2013, and suddenly they decided not to proceed with a case in the Gorbils. Now the First Minister has just articulated that it was September 2013 when the Crown Office first found out and sent out that information, but it wasn't. We know on 29 January 2013 that a prosecutor fiscal cited, and I quote, issues with horizon as the reason for not proceeding with a case in January 2013, not in September 2013. Stuart Monroe, convener of the Law Society of Scotland's criminal law committee, said that the prosecutor fiscal should have gone public. He says, and this is his quote, that the prosecutor fiscal has a legal duty to disclose relevant information of those accused of crimes, and that duty continues even after a trial is concluded. As soon as the prosecutor fiscal became aware of concerns about the reliability of horizon, that should have been disclosed. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland's Crown Office has serious questions to answer here? I want to say to Douglas Ross, in genuine sincerity, that the real questions of course are for the Post Office, and the information that the Post Office provided not just to the Crown, to Government ministers as well, and that is why a public inquiry is so important. Anybody who has questions to answer should co-operate with that public inquiry, but let's not forget that the Post Office is a wholly reserved institution directly accountable to UK Government ministers. There are legitimate questions to ask of the Crown. The Crown does operate independently of Government ministers and, of course, as it should operate independently of myself as the First Minister. There are legitimate questions that individuals and members of the chamber will have for the Crown Office. I repeat what Laura Advocate told me this morning. She is more than happy to provide a briefing to members of the Parliament that have an interest. I will end by reiterating the points that I made at the very beginning, which is that sub-postmasters and sub-postmisters have waited far too long for justice. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we not just get them access to that justice but access to compensation too. Douglas Ross The UK-wide inquiry that the First Minister has mentioned will look at all of those issues, and it is right that it continues to scrutinise what happened, but we must examine the unique circumstances in Scotland where the Crown Office was responsible for prosecutions of innocent people. If the Crown Office knew of specific problems more than a decade ago, that raises serious questions. We do not know what it did if anything with that information. The Horizon Post Office scandal has devastated lives. It is the most appalling miscarriage of justice. Good people were criminalised because of an IT failure that they had nothing to do with and a cover-up that lasted for years. It is right that no stone is left unturned in seeking answers. The Crown Office in Scotland must be transparent. Prosecutors were aware of issues with the flawed horizon system more than 10 years ago. We do not need meetings or briefings from the Lord Advocate. We need her here in Parliament to answer questions about this scandal. Does the First Minister agree that the Lord Advocate should urgently come to this Parliament to answer questions? I remind Douglas Ross, and this is a really important point, of course, that the Lord Advocate, when she discharges her functions as head of the prosecution service, does so independently of me. When I spoke to the Lord Advocate this morning, she was more than happy to consider whether it was a briefing, whether it was a ministerial statement, whatever was appropriate, she was willing to consider that. I am certain that the Lord Advocate is listening to those exchanges. Of course, it will be for her to determine, in her independent function as head of the prosecution service, on how she should answer any of those questions. Let me reiterate the point here that Scottish prosecutors were told in September 2013 to treat cases reported by the post office in regard to their facts, circumstances and evidence that did not rely upon horizons, so they should be reported under individual regard. Then, of course, no cases were prosecuted from 2015, where the sufficiency of evidence was dependent on the evidence from the horizon system. My understanding again from the conversations that I have had with the Lord Advocate is that the engagement with the post office between 2013 and 2015, the Crown Office was assured by the post office and the legal representatives that issues that arise with the horizon system in England did not impact on any live Scottish cases, so they continued to seek those assurances and then took the action that they did in both 2013 and 2015 as well. I simply end where I started time and time again. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were telling the UK Government and ministers in the UK Government that the body that they are wholly responsible for, the post office, was lying. They were simply not telling the truth about the horizon system. Time and time again, they were not listening to it. They have waited far too long for justice, they waited far too long for compensation. This Government will work with the UK Government to ensure that they get access to not just justice but to the compensation that they so rightly deserve. The lives of potentially hundreds of Scottish sub-postmasters and their families were ruined by post office and Fujitsu. People lost their livelihoods and in some cases even lost their lives. They have described being ostracised in their communities, their families shunned and their children targeted. It is a national disgrace. I welcome that those convictions will be overturned but there is more to this scandal. Unlike in England and Wales, where the post office itself brought those prosecutions, in Scotland they were carried out by the Crown Office and the Procurator for School. As we have heard, we know that ministers in the Crown were made aware of concerns around unsafe prosecutions in 2013. Can I ask the First Minister what conversations he, his justice secretary and the Lord Advocate have had about the role of Scottish institutions in prosecuting those cases and how that was allowed to happen for so long? First Minister, let me be clear whether I was justice secretary at the time or indeed in my current role as First Minister, it would be wholly inappropriate for any Government minister to demand to see the evidential basis for a case that the Crown was prosecuting. I know that Anasawa is not asking that, but I am making the point here that the issue here is the evidence that was provided by the post office. It would be wrong for me to, in any ministerial position, to suggest that I need to see that evidential basis in any individual prosecution. Anasawa asked what conversations I have had with the Lord Advocate. I had a conversation again this morning with the Lord Advocate and the Lord Advocate stressed a number of points. She is happy to provide a timeline in terms of how the Crown has responded. She is very confident about the Crown's response. They were told in 2013 about possible problems. They issued guidance to their individual prosecutors in 2013. They stopped prosecuting cases in 2015, after a period of continual conversation with the post office, and stopped prosecuting cases in 2015, when the sufficiency of evidence was dependent on the horizon system. The Lord Advocate is open to briefing members of the Scottish Parliament and, as we have already heard, whether that is through briefing or ministerial statement, I am sure that the Lord Advocate will reflect. Anasawa is absolutely right at the heart of that. Hundreds of people across the United Kingdom, whose lives and reputations have been tarnished and ruined, it is incumbent that this Government works with any other Government, including the UK Government, across the United Kingdom to ensure that justice is forthcoming and that access to compensation is not impeded. Anasawa. There are big questions for the Crown Office and the Procurate of Fiscal. I think that it would be right if the Lord Advocate came to this Parliament to answer those questions from members. But this goes beyond convictions. Disturbing accounts from the public inquiry have revealed that post office employees were going door-to-door in Scotland to threaten and extort money from sub-postmasters. In behaviour reminiscent of the mob, those stories show that the post office behaved like a private police force and showed little regard for the law in Scotland. Sub-postmasters were pressured into accepting accusations of false accounting and forced to handle over thousands of pounds that day or face imprisonment. First Minister, if any other organisation had behaved like that in Scotland, we would expect to see criminal investigations into their conduct. Does the First Minister agree that the potentially criminal behaviour by post office officials in Scotland should be properly investigated so that scandal does not go unpunished? I should have perhaps said at the beginning of my response to Douglas Ross. I absolutely empathise in the strongest way possible with the harrowing tales that we have heard from sub-postmasters and sub-postmasters right up and down the country. My own family are sub-postmasters. My late grandfather was a sub-postmaster and my step-grand continues to be so, although not affected by that particular scandal. I would say to Anasawa that the big difference, of course, is that the post office does not have the ability to bring private prosecutions here in Scotland. That is very different, of course, to the situation in England and Wales. The behaviours of the post office should absolutely rightly be interrogated. That is why there is a public inquiry. Of course, if there are any behaviours that are possibly criminal in Scotland, again it is not for me to investigate those that would rightly be for the independent Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service to do so. I have every confidence that the Crown will look into allegations or any allegations that are made to them about any potential criminal behaviour. Too often in this country, when there is an injustice, the first instinct of institutions and government is to protect themselves. Whether it is the sub-postmasters taking on the post office, the Hillsborough scandal, the Sea Diff scandal at the Vale of Leven, or victims at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. It should not take victims disclosing the most harming moments of their lives to shame both of Scotland's Government into action, but it happens too often. Government is meant to be on the people's side, but tragically when victims come looking for justice, all they get are more barriers put in their way, and the silence, denial and cover-up compounds the injustice and amplifies their pain. Ministers, be they Scottish or UK, always say that we must learn the lessons and it cannot be allowed to happen again, but it does. Does the First Minister agree that the priority for government should be truth and justice for victims rather than protecting institutions or protecting individual reputations? I do agree that that is of paramount importance. I do remind Anasawa, of course, the Labour Party, where in the UK government for a number of years, while sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were telling UK government postal ministers, Labour ministers, that the post office was presenting inaccurate data. I think that it is important for all UK-based parties in particular to reflect on their relationship with the post office and whether they were listening or not. In terms of the Government's approach, I think that we can demonstrate time and time and time again where issues have been brought to this Government. We have not only engaged often in really difficult conversations, engaged with individuals who bring forward harrowing stories and tales, but where necessary, of course, we will always investigate whether that is through the independence of commissioners that we have here, whether it is the patient safety commissioner, whom I am pleased that bill has passed, whether it is through the duty of candor in relation to the NHS, whether it is through public inquiries that we instruct. This Government's approach has been and will always be to ensure that we seek the truth and that we always ensure that we do right by the people of Scotland. When it comes to this particular issue, when it comes to sub-postmasters here in Scotland, we will work with whoever we need to, including the UK government, to ensure that those individuals not only get access to justice, but compensation, which has been denied to them, for far too long. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. I am grateful for that reply. Netazines are a kind of synthetic opioid, 50 times stronger than heroin. They are often delivered in a single pill or disguised as other substances entirely. The synthetic opioid epidemic across North America has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and public health officials and charities are worried that those drugs are coming to Scotland. We know that Netazines have been linked to the deaths of nine Scots this summer—or since the summer. The front line in our response to those new substances is information, detection and treatment. We still have the worst drug deaths in all of Europe. Can I ask the First Minister why his budget delivers a real-terms cut to drug services, just as this new threat is emerging? Can I say that we are committed and have not reduced the money in relation to the national mission for dealing with drugs deaths? Alex Cole-Hamilton is absolutely right about the danger of Netazines. In fact, the drugs minister and I spoke about this threat recently. I also spoke when I was in New York last year to the health commissioner in New York about the real dangers of synthetic opioids, which Alex Cole-Hamilton is right to say that they are a real epidemic. In America, we are not complacent about the challenges that we face here. We will continue to invest in the national mission in tackling drugs deaths when it comes to the specific action that we are taking around Netazines. There are a number of actions that we are taking in relation to them and in relation to synthetic opioids. I am more than happy for the drugs minister to meet Alex Cole-Hamilton to give him more detail about the actions and the range of actions that we are taking in this regard. Question 4, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is regarding any implications for its net zero ambitions of the UK Government's offshore petroleum licensing bill, which seeks changes to the licensing regime, including how regularly licensing rounds are held. Decisions on offshore oil and gas licensing remains reserved to the UK Government. The offshore petroleum bill, along with other recent announcements, demonstrates that it is not serious about the climate crisis. Instead of licensing ever more fossil fuel extraction, which the bill would absolutely see happen on an annual basis, the UK Government should be supporting a fair and just energy transition in line with its climate commitments. We have repeatedly called for a rigorous climate compatibility test to be applied to all new oil and gas developments. However, the checkpoint introduced by the UK Government before the latest licensing round is neither robust nor is it frankly transparent. Here in Scotland we remain absolutely committed to a just transition to net zero by 2045. I thank the First Minister for that reply. The former UK energy minister, Chris Skidmore, has recently resigned as an MP and protested over the bill. The COP26 president Sir Alec Sharma MP has stated that the bill, and I quote, reinforces that enforced perception about the UK rowing back on climate action. Even those within the Tory party recognise that the UK Government is not serious about climate change. Does the First Minister agree with me that the just transition to help to retrain and reskill the oil and gas workforce is vital to help to deliver the energy that we use? That any part of the forums that the next UK Government needs to be serious about climate change and are pushed towards net zero and that only as an independent nation the people of Scotland will get the energy policy fit for all the future and also the emergency that we are facing? I do agree with that. The fact that the Prime Minister spent more time on his private jet than he did at COP28 tells him his level of commitment to tackling the climate crisis. Of course, 2023 was and has been confirmed as the hottest year on record, so those who refuse in the face of all that evidence to take the necessary action are completely abdicating their responsibility not just to current generations but to the future generations and indeed to our planet as well. I do agree that responding to the climate emergency is an absolute imperative. There should be a political consensus. I am looking forward to meeting the party leaders later in the coming weeks to discuss how we can collectively work to tackle the climate crisis. What would really help is that every time the Scottish Government proposes action to tackle the climate crisis, if the opposition did not oppose it simply for its opposition's sake? Mark Ruskell This latest episode in Tory climate denial threatens to deepen our alliance on climate wrecking fossil fuels exactly when we should be doubling down on cheap and clean renewables. In Scotland we are making great progress, record investment in renewables as a result of planning reforms and tens of thousands of quality new green jobs. The draft energy strategy and just transition plan reflects both the scientific evidence of climate change and that economic opportunity by clearly stating a presumption against new oil and gas fields. Can I ask the First Minister what impact that new bill will have on that exact commitment? As the Scottish Government, we absolutely value the exceptional role that the oil and gas industry has played over many decades here in Scotland and, of course, the exceptional efforts of the incredibly hard-working workforce in the oil and gas industry, which are vital key components of Scotland's economic success. However, it is the case that, regardless of what anybody says in the chamber, the facts are the facts. Of course, the North Sea is a declining basin. Therefore, it is not just in the planet's interests that it is to have that just transition to net zero. It is in our economic interests, given the decline of the North Sea basin and the exceptional potential of our renewable sources, in order to ensure that that potential is unleashed. We are in the process of finalising that energy strategy and just transition plan, in light of the consultation responses that are received. Our focus will be on reducing emissions and on that just transition away from fossil fuels and towards unleashing the potential of our net zero green technologies. As Rosebank comes on stream and the 40s, which accounts for around 40 per cent of oil, continues to flow, refining must be carried out at Grangemouth. Will the First Minister commit today to bringing together Unite the Union, Petro Ineos and the UK Government to create the required rescue package to increase the profitability of the plant and to secure its long-term future as a Scottish refinery? The future industries board, which is looking at this very issue, is meeting, I believe, in the coming weeks. Of course, Neil Gray and I have had conversations with the owners of the Grangemouth refinery, and there will be continued discussions that are on-going. All of us want to see a viable future for Grangemouth. We also want to make sure that it is a sustainable future and do our very best to ensure that there are not job losses at Grangemouth. We will do what we can. That future industry board will meet it. I will ensure that Neil Gray writes to Ash Ragan with the full details of the actions that we are taking, which include not just engaging with the owners of Grangemouth but also engaging with trade union colleagues. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that the promise is not on track to deliver effective change for Scotland's care-experienced people. Keeping the promise is an absolute top priority for this Government. When I met Fiona Duncan, the independent strategic adviser for the promise late last year, she confirmed her view that the promise can be met by 2030. I am determined that we will do exactly that. Over the past year, we have made substantial progress on a whole range of aspects of the promise, including the Scottish-recommended allowance for fostering kinship carers and investing £6 million in the bairns whose pathfinders. There is, of course, more to do of that. There is simply no doubt, but let me assure the chamber that this Government will do everything in our power to keep and also deliver the promise to Scotland's care-experienced people. Ross McCull? I thank the First Minister for that response. Four years on, and the lives of care-experienced people in Scotland are no better. He will be aware of the comments of Megan Moffitt of Who Cares Scotland, who said that, despite laudable ambitions, there is no clear detail on how the promise should happen, who should do it, when, by, and how much it will cost. The outgoing Children's Commissioner stated that Nicola Sturgeon absolutely fails Scotland's young people and with that self-same MSP admitting recently that there is an implementation gap. When will the SNP Green Government stop tinkering around the edges of meaningful change, empower and adequately fund our councils to do the job, get the promise back on track and stop failing most vulnerable people in our society? I have to say that it takes some level of brass neck for a Conservative member to stand here and demand more money for local services and local government. When they are continually cutting our budget, time and time and time again, a real term is cut to our budget over a number of years. I also disagree fundamentally with the suggestion from Ross McCull that things have not improved. When I look at the latest published data showing that there was almost 2,000 fewer looked after children in July 2022 than at the start of the promise, which was in July 2020, that is a 12.9 per cent reduction, but those are not just numbers. That is almost 2,000 fewer children, young people and families that have been impacted positively and affected positively, too. I am not suggesting to Ross McCull anybody else that there are not issues in relation to the implementation of the promise. In my recent meeting with Fiona Duncan, who I think is widely respected across the chamber, there is a determination and understanding that we can absolutely keep the promise. That is why we will work with Fiona Duncan and all the stakeholders in relation to keeping the promise on the implementation plan 2040-30. I can promise those individuals, those young people and indeed care experienced people whatever stage of life they are at, that this Government is absolutely resolute, unwavering in its commitment to keeping and delivering the promise to them. Does the First Minister agree that, to keep the promise, the significant progress that has already been made needs to continue and now intensify? In particular, does he agree that the whole family wellbeing fund is absolutely essential to provide the funding to transform services so that families are better supported and fewer young people then need to enter care in the first place? To that end, will he give a commitment that the fund will be delivered in full and that it will be fully invested to improve the lives of the young people present and future to whom that promise has been made? Absolutely. First and foremost, can I recognise that there frankly would not be a promise if it wasn't for the efforts of the former First Minister of Nicola Sturgeon? Nicola Sturgeon would be the first to say that there would be no promise if it wasn't for the efforts of young care experienced people, so I want to pay tribute to them for the impact that they have had on all of us, not just on Government, but I suspect every single member of the Scottish Parliament who has engaged with care experience. Young people and care experience people more generally will have been impacted. I have had the pleasure of engaging with a number of care experience people in my time as First Minister. I am before and most recently hosting them in Bute House for a Christmas party, which was not just great fun but gave me the opportunity to hear from them directly on the improvements that we had to make. To answer Nicola Sturgeon's question, directly, the whole family wellbeing fund is a central component for us in terms of keeping the promise. Despite the very challenging autumn statement, despite the continued cuts over a number of years to our budget, we have prioritised £50 million for the fund in the £24.25 budget, as I say, even in the face of significant financial constraints. Reflecting our priority and the importance that we attach to keeping the promise. First Minister, what urgent steps have been taken to address reports of our mental health crisis with an increase in calls to the NHS 24 mental health hub? There is no question that, for many people, recent times have been extremely challenging, exacerbated of course by Covid and the cost of living crisis. We are committed to supporting people's mental health and wellbeing, just as we are to support their physical health too. A recently published mental health and wellbeing strategy delivery plan and workforce action plan recognises that an effective mental health system must address all levels of need. It sets out what people have a right to expect from high-quality mental health services and the actions that we are taking to achieve those aims. Those actions will continue to evolve over time and I am always open to constructive dialogue with Opposition parties on where they think we can go further. The member references NHS 24 call volumes. It is good that more people feel able to come forward and ask for help for their mental health, and our substantially increased investment in NHS 24 is helping to ensure that more calls can be responded to. Data from NHS 24 reveals that calls regarding alcohol problems have risen by over 602 years and calls regarding psychotic symptoms have more than doubled since 2021. That is not simply people presenting for the first time, First Minister. That is people who are not being seen urgently in the way that they should. Last year, astonishingly, more than 7,000 children and young people were turned away from CAMHS. That is an average of 26 children a day. Primary and community care services are under growing pressure, yet ministers have failed to start recruiting the promised additional 1,000 mental health roles, while cutting the budget for the coming year by £5 million after inflation. Will the First Minister accept that his mental health strategy will fail unless it is properly resourced? When it comes to mental health funding, the Government has a record that we are proud of standing on. Again, that is not the face of the most difficult set of finances and constrictions that we have faced in the history of devolution. The autumn statement from the UK Government was the worst-case scenario for Scotland, but, despite that, difficult decisions have to be made across Government in terms of budget. However, that has not stopped our focus on key priorities. Since 2020-21, the mental health directorate programme budget has more than doubled. When it comes to staffing, which is mentioned by Paul Sweeney, following our record-breaking investment in CAMHS, which I have just mentioned, CAMHS staffing has more than doubled under this Government. It has gone up by more than 126 per cent since 2007. Those are difficult decisions that have been made right across the United Kingdom, because of the cuts coming from the UK Government. In fact, if I look at Labour-run Wales and its 24-25 budget, here is a quote from its budget. We can no longer in this funding by 15 per cent in 24-25, as was originally planned, have reduced the existing mental health budget by a further six million. My point is, of course, that we will do everything that we possibly can to increase the investment in mental health, but we cannot do that in the face of continued cuts from the UK Government. Research indicates that 10 per cent of children and young people have a clinically diagnosable mental health issue. That is around three children in every class. Neuridiverse children and young people are struggling in particular right now, with Scotland currently facing a severe shortage of ADHD medication, which affects approximately 26,000 people. Can I ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government can do to help to address that issue? Karen Adam, forgive me, raises a very important issue, which I know impacts a number of people across the country. I recognise the impact of the global medicine shortages on people living with ADHD and the impact on their families. The pricing and supply of medicines is a reserve matter for the UK Government, but we regularly engage with them and have engaged with them specifically on that particular issue. The shortages are caused by a combination of manufacturing issues and a global increase in demand. The Brexit red tape certainly has not helped. It is anticipated that most of the shortages of ADHD medicine will be resolved this month. NHS Scotland has robust systems in place to manage medicine shortages when they do arise, and anyone who is affected should speak to the clinical team in the first instance. We move to general and constituency supplementaries, and I call Tess White. Matrix is one of Breakin's biggest employers, but most of its employees right now await news of their jobs as the manufacturing firm considers its future. Storm Babette has been blamed when the factory was under four feet of water with extensive machine damage. Can the First Minister tell us what his Government has done to protect and preserve the highly skilled jobs in Breakin, and when the SNP will finally fulfil its promise to support the town at its greatest time of need? Of course, we visited Breakin after Storm Babette, and we have been able to dispense with thousands of pounds in relation to business recovery grants, and I can get the exact detail to Tess White in that regard. We are stepping up to help the people and the businesses of Breakin through funding that we have made available. We were quick not just to visit, but to make sure that we acted. In terms of Matrix international more generally and more broadly, I know that the cabinet secretary is engaged and I know that Scottish Enterprise continued to be engaged as very disappointed to hear reports of potential job losses at Matrix international. Of course, the Scottish Government will provide support through our PACE initiative. PACE has already met the company to offer support to the workforce, but Neil Gray will continue to remain engaged, as will Scottish Enterprise, and I am happy to write to Tess White with further details of that engagement. During the stage 1 debate on my disabled person's transition to adulthood bill, the Government argued that a change in the law was not needed because good practice on ASN was spreading. New data from the Government's school census shows that the number of children with ASN getting legal support via a co-ordinated support plan has reached its lowest point ever. Despite promised action from this Government, including as fireback is 2016, things are getting worse, not better and a generation are failed. I ask the First Minister, with countless promises from his Government that things will get better, why is support for young people with additional support needs getting so much worse? We have invested significantly in ASN support for our young people. I would say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that there are a number of reasons why the Government did not feel that they could support her bill, but we are always open to work with Pam Duncan-Glancy with any member right across his chamber to see what further work we can do, what more we can do to support our young people when it comes to the ASN support that they require. However, of course, what we will continue to do is not just invest in that. We will continue to engage with our local authorities, who, of course, in budget 2425, as presented by the Deputy First Minister, are getting a significant increase in their budget, which will hopefully help in this regard. Like many others, I have been contacted by constituents on the Scottish Government's position on the Excell bully dog breed. In light of the new controls on the breed in England and Wales, which have come into effect in 1 February, can the First Minister outline when his Government will reach a decision on their own on this issue? First Minister? First and foremost, it is probably worth saying that the description of what is happening in England and Wales is not a ban on excell bully dogs. Of course, owners can still keep an excell bully dog. They have to make sure that it is registered on the exemption index. They have to fulfil the other criteria of the legislation. Of course, when this was first announced without any consultation with the Scottish Government, or indeed, as far as I can see, any consultation with animal welfare stakeholders, we committed in the Scottish Government to engage with animal welfare stakeholders and to continue to engage with the UK Government. What has become clear—I am afraid in the past few weeks—is that we have seen a flow of excell bully dogs coming to Scotland and a number of people transferring to Scotland to bring excell bully dogs here to the country. As such, we will give further details to members of the Scottish Parliament through a ministerial statement if the parliamentary bureau agrees next week that we will, in essence, replicate the legislation that is in England and Wales here in Scotland. Ultimately, although we have a very good system of dog control notice schemes and we take the approach of deed not breed, we have to respond to the situation as it currently stands. Therefore, we will do what we need to do to ensure public safety. Further detail will be given by the appropriate minister next week, subject to parliamentary bureau's agreement. New figures show that 11 people have died and 69 have been seriously injured in accidents on the A96 in the last four years. The Scottish Government promised in 2011 that it would be duelled by 2030, but that is now subject to a review at a cost of £5 million and whose publication has been delayed by over a year. First Minister, when will this review finally be published and will this Government ever do this killer road? First Minister, what does not help when it comes to a capital infrastructure project is a 10 per cent cut to our capital budget over the next five years, so what Conservative members cannot do is come to this chamber, demand we continue to invest in roads but simultaneously cut our budget time and time and time again. So, as confirmed to our programme for government, we remain absolutely committed to improving the A96, including during Inverness to Nairn and the Nairn bypass, which already has ministerial consent following that public local inquiry. The Minister for Transport is due, I believe, to meet members who have an interest in the A96 on 25 January. We will provide a more detailed update on the scheme, along with details about how the review is being undertaken on the wider A96 corridor. However, in the interim, I will absolutely assure all members that preparation work continues at pace on the Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass section. I can advise that to expect orders for the scheme that will be made in the first quarter of 2024, with a view to completing the necessary statutory process. The Accounts Commission today is discussing its reports into Renfrewshire Council's handling of the Dargavo schools debacle, estimated to cost Renfrewshire's children and taxpayers up to £170 million. The commission has stated that the council faces a challenge to rebuild trust and confidence. It has also stated that the community will be dealing with the consequences of this era for some time. Given that, how can the First Minister have confidence in Renfrewshire Council when so many local parents do not? Given funding for a new thorn primary school has been rejected by the Government, what support will the Government provide to Renfrewshire's children to stop them paying the price of their council's incompetence? First and foremost, Neil Bibby is right that he has been right over a number of months to raise the serious concerns that parents have in Renfrewshire over this particular situation. The council will have to reflect very hard in relation to how it rebuilds trust with parents in this regard. From the Scottish Government's perspective, we have a good record of investing in schools, new schools and refurbishments right across local authorities, including in Renfrewshire, as well as what the Scottish Government can do through the budget announced by the Deputy First Minister, the budget 2425. We are giving a significant uplift to local government. We will continue to engage with local government and with Renfrewshire Council on the issue, but it is the responsibility of the local authority and of Renfrewshire Council to ensure that it rebuilds trust with the parents and the families that are affected. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Rhoda Grant, and there will now be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so before the debate begins.