 Mae gael y cwestiynau general. Y ddweud y cwestiynau cyfnod yn ystod y First Minister. Yn cwestiynau no 1, rwy'n gwneud Douglas Ross. Mae gael y cwestiynau cyfnod yn gweithio'r cyfnod sy'n gweithio'r cyfnod sy'n gweithio'r cyfnod. Ac mae'n gweithio'r cyfnod, gyfnodd y Conservatwyr ysgolwyr ysgolwyr yn gyfnodd o'r blynedd yn cyfnodd gael cyfnodd. Ac mae'n gweithio'r cyfnod. Mae 40 cyfnodd o'r gweithio, ei bod yn i'n ei hunud 9,000 gynhyrch o'r cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd yn y fusir y lliwyr. Calom Steele, Gwyll少if Cysri o golygu Gweithfarnodd a Lleilwyr Lleith Ffresol hefydau o bobl sydd wedi cael eu cyfnodd. Gweithio'r cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd gan y cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd. Mae'n sgwy i'r cyfnodd gweithio'r cyfnodd iawn. Gallwch yn ddraig, dylai ddod ag lawer o'r iawn yr olympiau dŷodol, a a wnaent yn gweld gofio ein ddag yn ddod. Moedd yn iawn, ac mae'n gyd yn ddefnyddio arall dyma cyfnod y byddai ar gyfer iawn. Yr olympiau dŷodol, yn gweld gan y cyd-fodol yma ac mae'n gwaith yn rhaid. Felly, ddych yn gweld o'r iawn fynd ddod gles dros—yf wnawn a'n gweld ar hynny i haethcrime—a quarter of the hate crime reports. Victims are police officers, Presiding Officer, and not only that, from the statistics that we have to hand, many of them suffer the most outrageous abuse, some of that directed because of prejudice in relation to somebody's sexual orientation, sometimes in relation to their race. What we've witnessed over the last few weeks is I think the most worrying and concerning debasing of our political discourse by the Conservative Party in relation to the Hate Crime Act. Just imagine, Presiding Officer, that the Conservatives had been successful in repealing the Hate Crime Act. If the Hate Crime Act didn't exist, with the stroke of a pen, it would have removed protection against stirring up of hatred for those who suffer racist abuse, for those who suffer anti-semitism, for those who suffer Islamophobia, for those who suffer homophobia, transphobia, for those who suffer abuse because of their disability. What a reckless and frankly unforgivable approach for a party that seems more interested in gaining shoddy tabloid headlines than actually protecting people from hatred, Presiding Officer. Douglas Ross Shoddy tabloid headlines for quoting from police officers to police officers in this chamber and that's the response they get from their First Minister. It is a disgrace, First Minister, that you are unwilling to accept the failures of your bill and listen to the voice of police officers up and down the country, but if you won't listen to police officers, listen to others. Like us, who have said this bill was too vague, it was poorly defined and it wouldn't work. Now some of Scotland's top legal experts have said the same. Alistair Bonnington, Professor of Law at Glasgow University, said the law was extremely dangerous and he said this. It could see entirely respectable and reasonable citizens prosecuted for expressing viewpoints which the law would allow in almost every other country in the world. Lord Hope, formerly a Supreme Court justice and Scotland's most senior judge said that the act had misfired and described it as unworkable. Like the Scottish Conservatives, Lord Hope wants to see the Hate Crime Act repealed. So why does Humza Yousaf think he's right and legal experts are wrong? First Minister. In all of that, of course, the one group of people that Douglas Ross is refusing to listen to is the victims of hate crime. That has been consistent for the last few weeks when Douglas Ross has come to this chamber around the Hate Crime Act. Let's look at some of the details. Out of the 8,984 hate crime complaints that were made to Police Scotland in the first couple of weeks of April, the vast majority, at least 95 per cent, have been deemed not to be crimes. The idea that there would be mass criminalisation for people for simply expressing their opinion or being insulting or being offensive did not materialise. Why did that not materialise? If you look at the detail of the act, it makes it abundantly clear that, for the new stirring up offences, of course that behaviour has to be threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred. So we have a piece of legislation that does what any civilised society would want a piece of legislation of this nature to do, protect people from hatred. Of course it has the appropriate balance of protecting people in terms of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If only, Presiding Officer, the Conservatives spent more time opposing hatred as opposed to opposing the Hate Crime Act, then wouldn't they be in a much better place? Douglas Ross comes to use his bad SNP law because of the impact it is having. Victims of hate crimes are not getting the support from the police because they are being inundated with thousands of complaints. We are hearing this from the police. We are hearing this from legal experts. We said at the very beginning that this act would put free speech at risk. We will all have heard reports of a 74-year-old pensioner who was taken by the police to a station over a dispute with her neighbour. This grandmother was not charged. She had not committed an offence but she has been punished by the process exactly as we warned would happen just a few weeks ago. Public opinion is already against Humza Yousaf's law. A recent poll found that two thirds of Scots thought the Hate Crime Act should be repealed. Why does Humza Yousaf think that he is right and that the public are wrong? First Minister. In that question, Douglas Ross does not mention the victims of hate crime. Time and time again, he forgets to mention the very people who suffer hatred. In the figures for 2021-22, there were almost 7,000 hate crimes recorded in Police Scotland. That is almost 7,000 people who have been the victims of racist abuse, victims of anti-Semitism, victims of Islamophobia, victims of transphobia, victims of hatred because of their sexual orientation or disability. Those people deserve protection. What we have seen in the past few weeks is deliberate disinformation from the Conservatives and many other bad faith actors who have refused to look at what the law actually does. The law is abundantly clear for the new stirring of offences. That behaviour has to be threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred. In terms of police officers, let us go back to what Police Scotland has said. Let me commend and thank Police Scotland for the incredible job that it has done despite the fact that there have been many bad faith actors in relation to the Hate Crime Act. It has, in the Police Scotland's own words, been a minimal impact on front-line policing in the first couple of weeks. Let me thank Police officers day in and day out, not only for the work that they do in relation to tackling hate crime, but for the fact that almost a quarter of the Hate Crime Reports are against police officers themselves, Presiding Officer. Douglas Ross. Hamza Yousif is describing opponents of his bill as bad faith actors. First Minister, that is two thirds of Scots who, at the moment, want to see your legislation repealed. Hamza Yousif is sitting here saying that everything is fine with his legislation, just like he did with the ferries that he couldn't get to sail, the trains that he couldn't get to run on time, the NHS waiting lists that grew under his stewardship of the health service. We warned him that all of these problems with the Hate Crime Act would happen. We warned that the police would be overwhelmed. The law was poorly written. It would put free speech at risk. He dismissed every single valid criticism. Hamza Yousif said that he knew best. Now the police, legal experts and the public are telling him that he has got this badly wrong. The only person in Scotland who seems to think that this act is working well is Hamza Yousif. How on earth can the First Minister say that the Hate Crime Act has been a success? First Minister. Douglas Ross, of course, once again misrepresents the facts. The Parliament did not back the Conservatives. In fact, the Parliament backed the Hate Crime Act, with the exception of the Conservative Party, when it brought forward a motion to repeal that act. Of course, it was Parliament as a majority that rejected the Conservative motion. When I talk about bad faith actors, I am talking about the Conservative Party. I am talking about, for example, the observer who reported that neo-Nazis, those in the far right, were organising and orchestrating complaints to go into Police Scotland. They are, by any stretch of the imagination, bad faith actors. There are far too many bad faith actors who have been spreading disinformation and misinformation. Despite their misinformation, despite what they had been warning, which was proven to be untrue, despite what I suspect even some of their wishes were, the police dealt with those thousands of complaints and dealt with them well. Of course, only a minority of those complaints have ended up being recorded as hate crimes. Let me say this. Every single one of us stands in this chamber time and time again saying that we have a zero-tolerance approach to hatred. I have to say that that has been sorely tested by some of the comments that have been made by the Conservative Party in recent weeks. If you have a zero-tolerance approach to hatred, you should be getting behind this act of supporting the victims of hatred. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When Humza Yousaf was standing to be leader of his party, he promised to meet and better Scotland's climate targets. Am Yrishnesunach rolled back on the UK's climate commitments. The First Minister said that he had no intention to change the target dates. That is what he had to say about Yrishnesunach. The UK Government's actions in the face of that climate catastrophe are simply unforgivable. What the UK Government are saying is that we can roll back on our commitments and it is the planet, it is people that will suffer the effects. Today, this SNP green government is going to roll back on its climate commitments. So, why is Humza Yousaf following the Tory's lead? It is probably, Presiding Officer, why is it wise to listen to the detail of a parliamentary statement before, of course, simply coming forward with misleading and mischaracterisation of our position? Let's hear the First Minister. As the Parliament will hear later this afternoon, there is no intention to roll back from that 2045 date in order for us to reach net zero. In order for us to reach net zero, of course, five years ahead of the UK Government. In order for us to continue to have more ambitious climate change targets than Labour-run Wales, for example. We, of course, have made progress between 1990 and 2021. We have reduced our carbon emissions faster than any other nation in the UK. However, let me also be clear that this Government will not move back by, as I say, a single month, a week or even a day from that 2045 target to achieving net zero. However, let's be clear that the climate change committee was always clear with us that the 2030 target was a stretched target. That was clear to all of us when we all committed, when we all backed that target in the first place. However, what does not change and what will not change is that end destination of 2045. I will say that the cabinet secretary will come forward to this chamber with details of an accelerated package of climate action. What we have had, of course, from the Opposition time and time again from Anna Sarwar and his party, is, of course, opposition to every single measure that we have brought forward. If he and other members of the Opposition are serious on tackling the climate crisis— Let's hear the First Minister. It's time for them not to shy away, not to run away, but to back the ambitious climate action that we will bring forward. We voted for your targets. That was such an embarrassing response. That embarrassing argument might have worked with Patrick Harvie and Lornais later. It's not working with the Scottish people. Let's be clear. Chris Stark of the Climate Change Committee said last month that the Government's carbon reduction targets were no longer credible. He has been clear that in many areas the Scottish Government has all the powers that they need to make the difference, but they have not taken action. The response from across Scotland to the SNP and Greens rolling back on the climate commitments has been rightly scathing. Oxfam Scotland said this morning that it is an acute global embarrassment. Friends of the Earth said that it is the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament. Even one of his own ministers last night described it as very disappointing. We must have the only green party in the world that supports scapping a climate change target. Is not this why more and more people across Scotland are asking what is the point of this SNP-Green Government? The First Minister started his second question by saying that the Labour Party backed the targets. That is not in dispute. The point is that every time we brought action to this chamber he has opposed it time and time again. Anna Sauer sits there and shakes his head. When we brought forward a transport bill that had a workplace parking levy, of course Labour tried to remove the workplace parking levy. Not only that, of course, their own transport spokesperson called it a, I quote, highway robbery. He called it a car park tax. That was despite the fact, of course, that a Labour-run council in England had already brought forward a workplace parking levy. Under this Government, we have made progress, whether it is the fact that, when it comes to electricity generation, 87.9 per cent comes from zero or low-carbon sources, whether it is the fact that 75 per cent of all new woodland creation throughout the UK is here in Scotland, whether it is the success of the offshore wind leasing round Scotland, whether it is ensuring that we have one of the most generous concessionary travel schemes in the UK. The £65 million that we put towards 2,700 EV charging points. When Manny MacAllan comes to this chamber in the afternoon, we will build upon that by bringing forward an accelerated climate change proposal and plan. What is important here is for those who demand action that they then unequivocally support that bold and radical action, failure to do so will be nothing other than hypocrisy. Only Humza Yousaf could believe slamming the brakes is an acceleration, because that's what they're doing this afternoon. We already know that Humza Yousaf supports the tax on workers, but doesn't support a tax on the oil and gas giants who are making record profits, because the fact is that Humza Yousaf is rowing back on his climate targets, and the Green Party is backing him up. The SNP Green Government's failures mean higher bills, fewer green jobs and other countries winning the global race for clean energy. While they fail to meet their promises on jobs, Labour will deliver over 50,000 clean power jobs in Scotland. While they cut the money on retrofitting homes, Labour will upgrade thousands of homes to make them more energy efficient, and while they sell off Scotland's seabed on the cheap, Labour will deliver a publicly owned energy generation company headquartered here in Scotland. We all know that Scotland has huge potential, and the people of Scotland gave the SNP a huge opportunity, which it has wasted. Isn't it any wonder that people across the country believe that the SNP has lost its way, it has the wrong priorities and it is letting people down every single day? In that very short list of actions that Labour will be taking, there was one policy that was absent, of course. That was the £28 billion that they pledged to the Green Prosperity Fund. That was the £28 billion that you pledged, so instead of £28 billion, we get a brass plaque that will undoubtedly match the brass neck that Labour has, Presiding Officer. Let me state the facts. Let's cut through the sound bites and the lack of substance from Anasar. Let's stick to the facts. Scotland has reduced carbon emissions faster than any other part of the UK. That's a fact. We're absolutely committed to no rolling back on the net zero by 2045 target. In fact, the equivalent of 113 per cent of Scotland's overall electricity consumption in 2022 was generated by renewables. That's a fact. 75 per cent of all woodland creation throughout the UK is in Scotland. In fact, the only green policy that Labour had was the £28 billion a year green prosperity fund that it has dumped. Of course, it takes pride in the fact that its reckless plans are risking up to tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east, all to fund new nuclear power stations in England. This afternoon will be a key test. When the cabinet secretary brings forward an accelerated package of climate proposals, it will be time for the opposition to either put up or shut up. To ask the First Minister, in the light of the recent report by the Climate Change Committee, how the Scottish Government plans to accelerate action to ensure that Scotland achieves net zero by 2045. Miss Burgess, I'm sure no member can possibly think that that is courteous or respectful behaviour when another member is putting a question. Miss Burgess. To ask the First Minister, in the light of the recent report by the Climate Change Committee, how the Scottish Government plans to accelerate action to ensure that Scotland achieves net zero by 2045. That is exactly the package that accelerates the policy package that Mary McCallum will give detail of when she stands up. I won't pre-empt the detail of that here, but the Scottish Government is very appreciative, very grateful to the Independent Climate Change Committee for their latest advice. We welcome the recognition of where we have made progress, but we also take extremely seriously the fact that we have not made the progress that we've needed to make in order to get to that 2030 target. It has been made clear by the Climate Change Committee that that target is beyond what we are able to achieve, and that is why, again, Mary McCallum will come to this Parliament, to this chamber in the afternoon, to give details of the accelerated policy package that we will bring forward. We remain absolutely committed to ending Scotland's contribution to climate change in a just and fair way by 2045. I remind her that that is five years ahead of the rest of the UK. The Cabinet Secretary for the Wellbeing, Economy and Fair Work for Net Zero and Energy will make a statement to Parliament this afternoon on the response to the climate change committee's report. Again, the fundamental premise of that statement will be around the accelerated response to the climate emergency. One positive from the climate change committee report was that it is praised for our programme to deliver greener warmer homes through an upcoming heat and buildings bill as a template for the rest of the UK to follow. We've already seen opposition parties in this chamber call for climate action, but then corral the full forces of climate denialism as soon as we propose any change to business as usual. So can I ask the First Minister how his government will build support for our heat and buildings proposals and ensure that everyone in Scotland can benefit from greener warmer homes? That is symptomatic of an opposition that continues to demand action. Every time we bring forward action, they oppose it for opposition's sake. People will absolutely see through that time and time again. This afternoon, when we come forward with further proposals, detailed proposals on how we intend to accelerate our response to tackling the climate emergency, people will be watching to hear whether or not the opposition backed those radical proposals or, of course, they are just full of more hot air. We will continue to develop our proposals for a heat and buildings bill to tackle climate change and ensure that everybody in Scotland has a warm, affordable house to live in. The recent consultation and those proposals drew nearly 1,700 responses. We are now analysing those and feedback that will be published shortly later this year. The proposals are a critical part of our response to the climate crisis, and it is welcome that they have been recognised as a template for the rest of the UK. World-leading climate change targets being delivered by bad faith actors in the form of the Scottish Government was always going to be a challenge, and so it has proved that eight of the Scottish Government's last 12 emissions targets failed an embarrassing record, and now it appears that the SNP and Greens are considering scrapping annual targets in order to hide their symbolic record. Will the First Minister rule that out, or is his Government now retreating in the fight against climate change? What a prasnek from a party, of course, that has decided that it will be approving hundreds of new oil and gas licences without any question whatsoever, Presiding Officer. Cheek from a party, of course, his own net zero targets are behind ours. We are five years ahead of where the rest of the UK is in relation to our ambitions around net zero. I go back to my central point, Presiding Officer. People will be watching that when we bring forward that accelerated package of climate action, will it have the backing of the Opposition, who time and time again, particularly the Conservatives, demand we take action, then oppose the workplace parking levy, oppose DRS, oppose heat in buildings, oppose every single measure that we bring forward to this chamber. That, Presiding Officer, is a demonstration of how unserious they are, about how complacent they are when it comes to the climate emergency, Presiding Officer. Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week's memorandum of understanding between Hyundai, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is a vote of confidence in Scotland as a strategic hub for offshore wind, a crucial element out of our journey to net zero. Can the First Minister outline what support the Scottish Government is offering to the offshore wind industry to secure jobs and investment that will support Scotland's economy? I was very pleased to see the signing of the MOU between Hyundai Heavy Industries and our Enterprise Industries, a real demonstration that, through Scotland in particular, Scotland's offshore wind sector is attracting global attention. The offshore wind industry council has predicted jobs in the sector in the UK could grow to over 100,000 by 2030. That is why we are investing up to £500 million to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland, acting as a catalyst for further private sector investment, to ensure the Scottish workforce, businesses and communities all benefit from offshore renewables revolution. Collaborations such as that are undoubtedly vital, key in fact to delivering wider economic supply chain benefits to help power Scotland's green growing economy. We will continue to work together closely with our Enterprise Agencies and with SNIB, the Scottish National Investment Bank, to foster relationships with global industry partners. To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers this month's changes to UK migration rules will have on the seasonal workforce in Scotland as the soft fruit sector begins to prepare for the summer season. Will the UK Government's policies to reduce net migration are an example of decisions that are taken at Westminster, which directly work against Scotland's vital national interests? Increasing the skilled worker visa threshold from 26,200 to 38,700 makes no sense whatsoever for Scotland, and I suspect that many parts of the UK is a whole. It will limit labour migration in areas of Scotland that already face significant challenges around depopulation. Although the increase in the salary threshold does not currently affect seasonal horticultural and poultry workers, migrant workers play a vital role right across the breadth of our entire economy. Those changes could cause irreparable damage to the food supply chain and to the sustainability of our rural economy. It is only with independence that we would have the ability to devise a humane principled approach to migration that is needs-based and delivers positive outcomes for Scotland's communities, public services and our society more gently. I thank the First Minister for that answer and say that every day we hear about the harm that Brexit is causing the Scottish and indeed the UK economy with the cost now estimated at £140 billion. I say that but of course there is also a conspiracy of silence amongst the unionist parties who will not raise a word of concern or criticism about the effect that Brexit is having. I along with other members of the Parliament's CAC committee visited a exporter today who said that it is utterly exhausting trying to deal with the new burdens that Brexit imposes. He talked about businesses that have gone bust overnight, some which no longer export it anymore. Scotland's rural industries and constituencies like mine are bearing the brunt of Brexit. These new migration rules are just the latest in a long list of toxic Tory Westminster policies. A Labour Westminster Government, of course, would do nothing to change this. It would keep Scotland out of the EU, out of the single market. Does the First Minister agree that the change that Scotland needs is not a change of a government at Westminster but the change that only independence can bring? Well, there is simply no doubt that Brexit is relentless. The damage of Brexit has been relentless and so are the impacts that are being faced right across the labour market by Brexit. New import controls came into effect that threatened to cause hikes to food prices once again. That is on top of, of course, the Conservatives' mishandling of the economy, which has seen food prices rise to levels that have caused such suffering and such misery. Changes to migration policy combined with a loss of people coming from the EU to live and work in Scotland make it harder for key sectors, such as social care, agriculture and hospitality to recruit and crucially to retain vital staff. Keith Brown is absolutely right. Tory policy on migration is absolutely toxic. The sooner Scotland is free of a Tory Government, then the better. Labour, of course, offers little change on the big issues such as rejoining the European Union. A Labour Westminster Government will change absolutely nothing. It is only with independence will we once again rejoin the European Union and have that free movement of people. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to reports of significant financial pressures within NHS Lothian and NHS Borders. This year's budget provides an increase of more than £1 billion to our NHS boards, taking our total investment to boards to £14.2 billion. Of course, the NHS and social care budget is a whole to more than £19.5 billion. The £14.2 billion represents a real-terms uplift for NHS in Scotland in stark contrast to England, where the Tories have shamefully cut funding to the NHS in real terms. Despite our significant investment, we know that the system is under extreme pressure as a result of the on-going impacts of Covid and many other impacts as well. The Scottish Government is in on-going contact with all of our boards, including NHS Lothian and NHS Borders, to address the financial challenges that they face. That includes scrutiny and challenge of financial plans and agreeing to support recurring savings where we can to ensure financial sustainability. On 16 December 2021, Humza Yousaf told this Parliament, and I quote, every member recognises the importance of Eddington hospital being at the heart of the local community. He said, I reiterate that and I understand that. I know that NHS Lothian understands it, too. Last month, as a result of an SNP cash crisis, NHS Lothian announced the permanent closure of beds at the Eddington, along with the Abicare home in North Berwick and the Bellhaven hospital in Dunbar. Meanwhile, local primary care providers have announced that they are facing massive increases in NHS Lothian's facilities management fees, with Trinent facing the loss of 3,500 GP appointments as a result. Before the First Minister blames someone or something else, will he finally take responsibility for the crisis that he, himself and his Government have created in Scotland's NHS? The audacity of Craig Hoy standing up here, shedding crocodile tears for our NHS, while his party has cut our capital budget by £1.3 billion, that is capital funding that could and should be used on health infrastructure projects. What a sight it is to behold to have Craig Hoy and the Conservatives demand that we spend more money while, at the same time, they have cut not just a capital budget but a resource budget in real terms by £500 million. There are, of course, pressures on our NHS. That is why we have taken a different course of action to the Conservative UK Government. The Conservative UK Government has prioritised tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the NHS, while we are asking those who earn the most—for example, those on an MP salary, those on a First Minister's salary—to pay more so that we can provide more funding, record funding to our public services, such as the NHS. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the SNP, and I make no apologies for it. To ask the First Minister whether he would provide an update on what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Lord Advocate regarding the exoneration of Scottish sub-postmasters and mistresses whose convictions were based on evidence from the post-office horizon computer system. Of course, as the member knows, the role of the Lord Advocate is head of systems of prosecution is an independent function. Nonetheless, I hope that she is assured by the fact that Justice Secretary and I have had a number of discussions with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General on a number of occasions. We continue to press the UK Government to extend its bill to cover sub-postmasters and mistresses in Scotland. The cabinet secretary for justice has written to him today with suggested amendments to achieve that, and I am happy for that letter to be made public. If the UK bill is not extended, we will introduce Scottish legislation. Of course, Scottish legislation cannot be introduced. It will need to be passed after the UK Government bill has been passed. That is essential, so that we can take account of any amendments that are made during the passage at Westminster. That is to ensure that there is compatibility with UK legislation because, of course, the compensation scheme is a UK compensation scheme over which the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have no responsibility or power over. From recent coverage in the press, what we now know is that people at the top of the post office lied all the way about Horizon and down to our Crown Office. However, the Crown Office accepted an interim report by the Accountancy firm's second site as corroboration that the Horizon system was okay, despite the fact that the director of the firm says that the report revealed system flaws with Horizon. However, so far, as the First Minister knows the honest is currently on postmasters themselves to appeal their convictions, and I'm sure we agree that's wholly unacceptable. I wonder if the First Minister agreed with Kevin Drummond KC that the Lord Advocate could present a petition to the criminal appeal court to inform the court that those convictions have been found on flawed evidence and invite the court to overturn the convictions. We all want the quickest route to justice, but if that is a quicker route, and it might be, does the First Minister agree that the miscarriages of justice could be quicker dealt with in Scotland where those miscarriages of justice took place and that our Crown Office should be responsible for the actions that they took? First of all, I do agree with her entirely that the honest cannot and should not be on subpostmasters and postmistresses who've waited far too long for justice. Can I also reiterate what the Lord Advocate has said previously a number of months ago now, or a number of weeks ago, certainly that she would be willing to be able to update members directly in terms of the questions that they've got. Of course, any petition going to the courts would not be a matter for me as First Minister, but a matter, of course, for Lord Advocate. There may be some difficulties in why identifying so-called horizon cases is slightly more complex here in Scotland. I know that Pauline McNeill will completely understand this, of course, but the Post Office cannot bring forward private prosecutions. The prosecutions in Scotland are in the same manner, of course, in the way that they can in England. Secondly, of course, the Crown, as the Lord Advocate said previously, has often been chasing the Post Office for further information in order to be able to triage horizon cases, and that information has often not been forthcoming. Pauline McNeill will also be aware that in Scotland prosecutions do not simply rely on one piece of evidence, for example, on horizon data that would have to have corroborative evidence often in such cases. Triaging those cases can be a bit more challenging. I do not disagree with the premise of Pauline McNeill's question at all. If there is a quicker way, a quicker route, where we can get justice, and at the same time, of course, we do not want to see those whose convictions are sound. We do not want those convictions overturned and those people then liable for compensation, then we will explore every avenue that we possibly can. We want no delay whatsoever. We will continue to work with the UK Government to do what is the simplest thing, which is, of course, to ensure that the UK legislation applies. In November, Kenneth Donnelly, on behalf of the Crown Office, in his written statement to the Wynn-Williams inquiry in paragraph 73, undertook that there would be brought forward a quote, streamlined and expedited process for securing the quashing of the convictions. Why has the Lord Advocate not brought that forward? Given that we all want the aim of the swiftest possible delivery of exoneration of people whose lives have been destroyed and ruined, and in some cases they are now dead, should we not at least publish in draft now the Scottish legislation, rather than let this drift on further into the autumn? There is nothing stopping us, for example, from introducing Scottish legislation, specific legislation. We are, of course, working on what that draft legislation would look like in the event that the UK Government does not accept what are very reasonable amendments that have been put forward that would ensure that that bill is then UK-wide, which we think is the simplest, easiest way to ensure that there is fairness and equity between sub-postmasters and post-mistresses right across the entirety of the UK. I do still have concerns about the UK Government's approach, hence why I hope that they are open to amendments so that we can ensure that there is a minimising, if not a complete elimination, of those whose convictions are sound from being overturned in terms of the questions that Fergus Ewing directly asks of me—they are, of course—for Lord Advocate. My understanding is that Lord Advocate has written to Fergus Ewing, if that is not the case, I am more than happy to ask the question that Fergus has put to me to the Lord Advocate and ensure that he gets a detailed response. I will say once again that we are working on Scottish-specific legislation, although I go back to the central point. We cannot allow a situation where sub-postmasters and post-mistresses in Scotland are treated in a different way than they are in England in relation to the access to compensation. The work of undercover police officers is secretive, sensitive and dangerous, yet Police Scotland is investigating claims that the personal details and photos of undercover officers have been leaked to an organised crime group. Can the First Minister tell me when his Government was first made aware of those serious allegations, what impact this might have on policing operations and, most importantly, what has been done to protect officers who may now be compromised? Russell Finlay has every right to raise this issue. I share his concern, particularly in my previous role as justice secretary when I worked very closely with the Serious Organised Crime Task Force. We know how important and imperative the work is of our undercover police officers. Of course, it is a matter that is operational for Police Scotland. No doubt, Russell Finlay could write to the chief constable to gain as many assurances as possible, but I would say that it is a matter that I understand is still under a live investigation, as we speak. I want to thank Police officers for the excellent work that they do, often putting themselves in harm's way to protect us. I share Russell Finlay's concern, but, of course, that would be a matter for Police Scotland in relation to the protection of officers. On the Scottish Government's first new, I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice writes to Russell Finlay with that detail. Can the First Minister confirm to the Waspie women watching and to those protesting outside Parliament today that this Scottish Government stands with and supports them in their continuing battle with the UK Government for compensation? Will he personally lend his weight to urge UK ministers to bring forward a compensation plan for my rather glim constituents and other Waspie women across Scotland with the utmost urgency? The Scottish Government has always and will always support the Waspie women. The report from the Parliament and Health Services Ombasmen is a significant moment for all those who have been involved in this campaign. I want to pay tribute to each and every single woman who has tirelessly fought, not just for their rights, but for the rights of all women who have been impacted and affected by those disgraceful decisions that were made by UK Governments without their knowledge. It is time for the UK Government not just to apologise but to deliver justice and compensation for their actions. I am writing to the Prime Minister but also the leader of the Opposition calling for urgent action following the Ombasmen's report. I can reassure members that this Government will not rest until Waspie women receive the justice that they absolutely deserve. I look forward to meeting Waspie campaigners after this session and reassuring them that, while they may be abandoned by the UK Conservative Government and also it seems by the UK Labour Party, the SNP stands firmly with them in their pursuit of justice. The chamber is aware that this morning, Sandyford clinic has announced that it will no longer prescribe puberty blockers to 16 and 17-year-olds a key recommendation in the recently released cash review. First Minister, members in this chamber should know if this decision has been taken as a result of any Scottish Government intervention. If he and his Government is supportive of a wider acceptance of the recommendations within the cash review, after the poor, indeed woeful answers that we received in this chamber yesterday, will he intervene where the health secretary has not and ensure that a statement is made in this Parliament to clarify the Government's confused position on this matter and to allow members to have an opportunity to question Government on this very important matter? First Minister. On the matter of the cash review, perhaps I will just quote directly from Dr Hilary Cass herself from an interview that she did just a few days ago. She says, and I quote, the toxicity of the debate is perpetuated. I am astonished, Presiding Officer, that we are getting Conservative members grown at the fact that I am quoting Dr Hilary Cass. The toxicity of the debate is perpetuated by adults and that itself is unfair to the children who are caught up in the middle of it. The children are being used as a football and this is a group that we should be showing more compassion to. It is that very last point that I wanted to draw attention to because it is the compassion to this group of young people that has to be at the forefront of everything that we do. I absolutely believe that it is the forefront of Carol Mocken's mind and the question that she asks. Because of that, it was absolutely right to allow clinicians to have conversations with the young people that they treat compassionately before, of course, the Government came forward with any further statement in relation to clinical decisions that were being made. Now that we have had that confirmation, of course, the health secretary or ministers will come to the chamber with the agreement of the parliamentary bureau next week or in the coming weeks to give an update on the Government's position. There is a process of review that is very much under way, but I go back again not just to the central point about compassion, but the point that when it comes to the treatment, when it comes to the care that is provided to these young people, those should be matters that are made by clinicians and decided upon by clericians, not entirely by politicians. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the First Minister welcome the news eloquently set out in today's herald that Scotland's outperforming the UK as a whole in terms of private sector business activity is third amongst the UK's 12 regions and nations for economic growth? Is currently enjoying the greatest expansion of business activity in nearly a year? And what assessment has he made of devolved decision-making's impact and delivering these positive outcomes? First Minister. Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right to raise those issues. It will be, of course, much to the upset of the doomsayers in terms of Scotland's economy, but the member is right to point out the news that Scotland's economy is across a whole range of measures outperforming the UK economy. I welcome his efforts, the member's efforts to counter those who would talk down Scotland's economic success. Scotland's GDP per capita has grown faster than the UK's since 2007 and since 2007. Productivity in Scotland has grown at an average annual rate of 1 per cent. That compares to the UK average rate of 0.4 per cent. We have already heard in relation to the question from Stuart McMillan about the partnership between Scottish Enterprise agencies and HD Hyundai heavy industries. Again, just one example of the investment that we are attracting here to Scotland. Think how much more we could do if we weren't tied to Brexit broken Britain, Brexit, which has been an unmitigated economic disaster. If only we had the full fiscal and monetary levers of a normal independent nation, think how much more we could do, Edward Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. April is Bow Cancer Awareness Month and Bow Cancer is the second biggest form of cancer death in the United Kingdom. Scotland's excellent screening programme could, however, be better. The Government has signed up to increasing the sensitivity of the current steps, which will undoubtedly save lives. Sadly, they have not yet delivered. Minister, as a first step, will you now commit to evaluating and publishing the costs of making Bow Cancer screening more sensitive? First Minister, I first of all pay tribute to Edward Mountain, who has spoken about his own cancer journey, extremely bravely. He has done it often with good humour as well. He has brought together all members across the political spectrum in order to challenge us, the Government, in particular, about what more we can do. I will certainly have a conversation with the health secretary. We will look, we will examine, we will explore what more we can do in relation to the sensitivity of the excellent screening programme that we already have. Although it is an excellent screening programme, we always want to seek to do what more we can to improve it to ensure that we are capturing more people as early as we possibly can because Edward Mountain knows only too well the earlier the diagnosis, the better, hopefully, the prognosis for the individual involved. I will look at the ask that Edward Mountain makes and let me finish by once again paying tribute to him for his efforts on raising awareness of Bow Cancer and cancer more generally. This morning, we learned from BMA Scotland that more than 600 consultant vacancies are missing from Scottish Government official statistics. Clinicians have repeatedly warned of the workforce crisis in the NHS but ministers have been quick to say nothing to see here. Now we learn that the published data is entirely misleading and the vacancy rate is 15 per cent more than double the 6.9 per cent given in official statistics. Can the First Minister guarantee that all workforce data is urgently reviewed to ensure accuracy and will this shocking revelation be the wake-up call needed to set out a credible NHS workforce plan? We will always look to see what can be done to ensure that our statistics are rigorously checked through the appropriate means and manners and where, of course, any challenges are raised. We take those seriously, particularly from an organisation like the BMA. When it comes to the NHS staffing record under the SNP, of course, we have seen record highs of staff over 33,000 whole-time equivalents since September 2006 to December 2023. We have seen more staffing per head in Scotland per head compared to England. We have seen more qualified nurses and midwives per thousand of the population compared to England. Overall nursing and midwifery staffing at a record high is a medical and dental consultant up by 68,000 under the SNP. However, that does not take away from the point that it continues to be workforce vacancies, as Jackie Baillie highlights. That is why we will continue to do what we can to attract, recruit and retain staff. A key element of that is making sure that NHS staff continue to be the best paid anywhere in the UK. Thank you. That concludes the First Minister's questions. I will take a point of order from Kevin Stewart in the first question. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could you please rule on the misinformation that Megan Gallagher gave in her previous point of order about gender services? To be clear, what has been announced today was not a decision of the Scottish Government. Therefore, it has made no announcement and therefore there cannot be any leak as was alleged in the point of order. This is a decision of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, which I can see has made its announcement through a press release this morning, confirming the clinical decisions that they have made. I know that you cannot rule on the veracity of members' contributions, but surely when it comes to misinformation, there should be a ruling. Thank you, Mr Stewart. You are indeed correct. I cannot rule on the content of members' contributions. Your comments are, of course, now on the record. I will take a point of order from Megan Gallagher. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Further to my point of order this morning, in light of your previous ruling and the new information that has been made available through the press on the Government's announcement to pause the prescription of puberty blockers to children and young people, I seek to move a motion without notice of the following wording. Under rule 17.2.1A, the Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words by 10am for the purposes of the meeting. Thank you, Ms Gallagher, for your point of order. As I previously explained, I am not minded to accept a motion without notice for the purpose of questions where there has just been an opportunity for members to put questions directly to the First Minister. However, I have noted with regard to this particular instance that members have previously raised questions with regard to the particular procedures. I know that that is a matter that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee are looking at and may be one that is potentially up for review, and this matter, of course, can also be raised with your business manager at our next meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. I call Pam Gossel for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Over the past three years, I have brought many diverse communities into this Parliament. However, a recent incident has cast a shadow over those efforts. During a Tuesday evening Eid reception, attendees were intimidated and bullied into not participating. It came to light that an executive member of the Scottish National Party affiliated group orchestrated a campaign urging others to boycott the event, citing it as a Tory Eid reception. Despite the parliamentary rules forbidding party political events within the building, that turn-off event is deeply disappointing. Such occasions were celebrating Eid, Vesachy or Diwali should serve as opportunities to honour Scotland's diverse stay and foster connections between guests and politicians from across political spectrum. Yet that Eid reception was tainted by political undertones. However, I would like to thank those who did not give in to the peer pressure and still attended the Eid reception in the Scottish Parliament. I would also like to thank Douglas Ross and Alex Cole-Hamilton for their attendance. However, I am disappointed that, despite confounding their attendance, I had to find out first from the community links that Humza Yousaf and Anna Sarra would not be joining us. It was also notable that not one MSP from the SNP, Labour or Greens, attended to celebrate Eid with the Muslim community. I appealed to the First Minister to denounce such behaviour, but unfortunately no action was taken sending a concerning message to those involved in such intimidation tactics. That incident sets a troubling presence for the future events. It undermines our efforts to foster inclusivity and engagement within the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, Presiding Officer, I seek urgent guidance on how we can uphold the integrity of this Parliament by ensuring that the party politics does not interfere with the public's engagement with the Parliament, how we can ensure safety of Parliament staff and whether the behaviour of members in relation to this event means that, going forward by attending any reception sponsored by members of any political party, we are in turn endorsing their political views. Thank you, Ms Gossel. It is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, therefore it is not one that I can rule on from the chair. It is obviously extremely important though that all can attend events in this Parliament, which is a welcoming democratic space, and I would be happy to have a discussion with the member in due course. Once again, we have a significant announcement being made through the press, as opposed to being delivered first to this Parliament by this devolved Government. This afternoon, we have a statement from the Scottish Government-titled Climate Change Committee Scotland report, Next Steps. Last night, the BBC were already reporting what this is going to say. According to the BBC, the Scottish Government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 per cent by 2030. I do not know how many times the Scottish Government has bypassed your request that significant announcements be made in the chamber in the first instance. What I do know is that it is ignoring your instruction, which is contempt. Will you consider before the statement this afternoon what action you can take to ensure that ministers finally respect this Parliament? Thank you, Mr Lumsden. I have not yet seen the statement, but I am aware that there is clearly discussion in the public domain, and I will consider this matter before we return this afternoon. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. It is indeed further to the previous point of order, because when the announcement that the census was going to be extended in April 2022, you were challenged by not being able to see what was in the statement, because it had not yet been published. Would it be within the auspices of your power to observe the statement over the recess for you in this chair over the next hour, so that you could make a decision about whether any or all of the statement should be heard before we move to questions this afternoon? Yes, indeed. Further to my response to Mr Lumsden, I will be considering this matter fully over the next period. We will now move on to Members' Business in the name of Pauline McNeill.