 that concludes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's Questions at question number one. I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by putting on record the best wishes of I'm sure the whole chamber and people across Scotland to His Majesty the King and the Duchess of Rossie. We wish them both a speedy recovery to good health. Last week in response to the horizon scandal, the first minister said this. I think the idea of almost a mass exoneration is one that is very worthy of consideration. And in a letter to the Prime Minister just eight days ago he said, and I quote, it is right that normal processes for appeals are set aside. But in a statement this week, the Lord Advocate, his government's top legal adviser said, and I quote, in Scotland there is an established route of appeal in circumstances like this. So Humza Yousaf has said that there should be a blanket exoneration, but the Lord Advocate believes that the current process for appeals shouldn't change with each case being considered individually. So can the First Minister tell not just Parliament but crucially all the victims of this scandal? What the position of his government actually is? I thank Douglas Ross for the question. I also associate myself with the remarks and wish a speedy recovery to both King Charles and, of course, the Duchess of Rossy 2. In relation to this issue, let's first and foremost begin by paying tribute once again, not just to Alan Bates but to those hundreds of sub-postmasters and mistresses right across the United Kingdom that should not have had to wait for an ITV drama in order to see justice or indeed in order to see compensation. But, of course, it is important that the UK Government has acted—Douglas Ross is right, I wrote to the Prime Minister. I should say that I have received a response back from the Prime Minister. The response is a positive one that he is willing to work on a UK-wide basis. I should say that I am happy to release that response, although I think that we are waiting for number 10 to confirm that they are also happy for us to do so. However, that detail in that response does say that the UK Government is willing to work with the Scottish Government in order to look at a UK-wide basis for mass exoneration for those who have been wrongfully convicted. I listened very carefully to what Lord Advocate had to say, both in her statement and indeed in response to questions. She was making the point, of course, that there is a current appeals process through the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission as well in order to investigate mass miscarriages of justice. However, let me just be clear that Douglas Ross has no misunderstanding. We support the UK Government looking at legislation for mass exoneration of those who are wrongfully convicted. We have written to the UK Government, got a positive response back and we hope that the legislation can apply on a UK-wide basis. Douglas Ross does not actually clear up the case here in Scotland. The First Minister says that it does, but of course the UK legislation will apply in England and Wales, but this issue is devolved here in Scotland. We have his top legal officer who sits in the Scottish Government Cabinet saying something quite different to the First Minister. Let me quote again from the Lord Advocate on Tuesday, it's an important process because not every case involving horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice and each case must be considered carefully. That's the Lord Advocate's current position. What that is is a refusal to change the process and accelerate the system because there may be some guilty people. Surely it's better to accept the tiny possibility that a guilty person will have their conviction overturned than allowing dozens of innocent postmasters to live with the stain of guilt for a minute longer. So can I ask the First Minister what discussions has he had with the Lord Advocate since her statement on Tuesday and does he agree that those convictions must be quashed as quickly as possible? The Lord Advocate and I are due to speak again tomorrow, I believe. What I would say to Douglas Ross is that Lord Advocate, when she was speaking in the chamber of course, was speaking as the independent head of prosecutions. That is an important part of her function, which is distinct of course to her position when she provides legal advice as a member of this Government. It's still my preference, I should say, that there is, on a UK-wide basis, through an LCM. That would be the preferable route. Now there are complexities to work through that. I think that the choice that Douglas Ross is presenting as a binary choice is not the correct one. The best position for all of us is urgently seeing the mass exoneration for those who were wrongfully convicted. Of course, for those whose conviction was sound and is sound, nobody wants to see necessarily their conviction overturned and then being able to apply for compensation. If we can get to that position, that is the best position to get to. That is why we are willing to work with the UK Government, who presumably also don't want sound convictions overturned if they can avoid that. We will work with the UK Government in that respect. However, let's not forget about what we are dealing with here. I am afraid that is a scandal that was born in Westminster. It is a post office that is wholly reserved, wholly responsible to UK Government ministers. I accept and lied to UK Government ministers, but UK Government clearly did not interrogate the post office strongly enough. Therefore, the public inquiry is important, and I will judge the UK Government to make sure that they fully co-operate with that public inquiry. The Crown Office is wholly devolved here in Scotland. That is why the situation is very different here. The post office could not prosecute these individuals here. It was the crown office. One of those who was prosecuted was Judith Smith. She pled guilty in 2009 at Selkart Sheriff Court to charge of fraud after thousands of pounds disappeared. Judith's lawyer told us that the Crown Office displayed a worrying lack of scepticism at the post office's case, particularly as there was no trace of the money anywhere. Judith was even asked if she had blown it all on a lavish holiday or if she had a gambling problem. Her conviction was finally quashed just last week, but Judith's lawyer said that the Crown Office should have launched a review of all past post office prosecutions the minute it became aware of the horizon problem in 2013. They did not, and it took a further two years for prosecutors to dismiss on-going cases that relied on horizon evidence. Can the First Minister explain why prosecutions in Scotland continued for two more years after the Crown Office became aware of concerns with horizon? Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Conservative calls that the Lord Advocate at the time, Frank Mulholland, should come to this Parliament to answer questions on this scandal? First of all, can we be clear what it took was an ITV drama in order to get the UK Government to make sure that they took action, even though they were being told by hundreds of sub-postmasters and mistresses up and down the country that they had been lied to? Let's not forget that that is what spurred the UK Government into action, not the pleas and desperate pleas of sub-postmasters right up and down the country. Let's go back to the point that the Lord Advocate made very clearly in the chamber that the Crown was, in her words, misled and not given false reassurances by the UK post office, time and time and time again. I have to say that hearing the harrowing testimonies, including, of course, the one from Judith Douglas Ross, just articulated, there are many institutions that will be answerable for what they did and the action that they took. I would fully expect—and I'm certain that it will be the case—that the Crown Office would also fully co-operate with the public inquiry under way in terms of why the Crown chose to prosecute cases post-2013. Again, the Lord Advocate laid that out, laid out the fact that, of course, there was guidance to prosecutors in 2013 involving horizon cases and, of course, then they stopped prosecuting cases in 2015 that were sufficiently dependent on horizon data. In terms of Lord Advocate, of course, the current Lord Advocate is responsible and answerable for the Crown. Of course, she has already answered questions about what took place in 2013 and she has already said that if MSPs want a further opportunity to question her, then she will make herself available. Douglas Ross. Of course, my question was about one of her predecessors and I think that it is crucial that this Parliament hears from Frank Mulholland. It would just be interesting to know if the First Minister supports those Scottish Conservative calls, because all of this matters here in Holyrood, because the Crown Office is a devolved institution. The procedure by which these convictions can be quashed will be set by this Government and this Parliament, but the process set out by the Lord Advocate could see that taking far, far longer in Scotland than it should. Myra Philp worked with her mum, Mary, at the Post Office in Ochtermachty in 2001. At 7 a.m. one morning, Post Office auditors burst through the door and demanded the keys to the shop. Mary, a former policewoman, was suspended but she immediately suspected horizon was to blame. The Post Office, on the other hand, blamed her teenage grandchildren. Auditors accused them of breaking in during the night, overriding the time lock and taking the money. Mary was not prosecuted, but she lost her business. She died in 2018, the year before Alan Bates for the Post Office to admit horizon was desperately flawed. Myra told us this. My mum died not knowing she was right. The Lord Advocate is head of the independent judiciary in Scotland, but she is also the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the Cabinet. Does the First Minister accept that if we follow the position that the Lord Advocate laid out to the Scottish Parliament of her preferred process, it will take far too long for postmasters wrongly convicted and some could die before their names are cleared? First Minister, I give clarity once again not just to Douglas Ross but to Mary's family, to all the other sub-postmasters right across Scotland. The UK Government last week announced that they were looking to bring forward legislation in the UK Parliament in order for mass exonerations to take place when it comes to wrongful convictions. I have written to the Prime Minister to say that we welcome that process. And not only that, as the First Minister, we would be willing to work with the UK Government for that legislation to take place and have effect on a UK-wide basis. That could be through an LCM. I should say to Douglas Ross that if an LCM, for whatever reason the UK Government, if that is not possible, we are already working on contingencies that are in separate Scottish legislation if that is required. I hope not. I think that if there is a possibility for an LCM, that would be the easiest and quickest route. I, as the First Minister of Scotland, will decide what legislative route is brought forward to this Parliament in order to exonerate those who are wrongfully convicted. Let's say once again that harrowing testimony that Douglas Ross has given in relation to what Mary had to suffer and no doubt the consequences are still felt by her family. That happened on the UK Government's watch. That happened because of a post-office that was wholly reserved to the UK Government. UK Government ministers of UK-based parties, time after time after time, did not believe sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses like Mary and others who were being harassed by the post office at the time. They have waited far too long for justice. Let me give an absolute confirmation and assurance to them that we will work with the UK Government and whoever else we need to to make sure that there is not a single day longer that we have to wait— Briefly, First Minister. Not just for justice, but for access to compensation. Can I echo the best wishes to King Charles and the Duchess of Rossy and wish them both a speedy recovery? Confusion about the ban of exiled dogs in Scotland has brought dangerous dogs back into the headlines. Today, the SNP Government will finally make a statement, and I hope that it will take action. Like so many issues, it is only when media pressure builds that SNP ministers respond to often the act on headlines rather than the evidence. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee when it produced a report on the 2010 control of dogs act. The cross-party committee called for a review of the law and the focus to be on irresponsible owners and breeders. The Government accepted the findings of the committee and committed to a review in 2019, so can I ask the First Minister, nearly five years on, why are we still waiting? Of course, there was something that happened between 2020 and the current time, and that was a global pandemic, which undoubtedly resulted in the fact that other work had to be delayed. I think that most individuals would accept that. In terms of the exiled bully safeguards that the UK Government has brought in, they made that announcement without a single word of consultation with the Scottish Government. I suspect that, if, at that point, I had said to Anna Sauer that, yes, we will take immediate action, he would have demanded what consultation we had had. It was right that Siobhan Brown took the time to have consultation with animal welfare stakeholders and those who are involved in animal re-homing centres. The Scottish Government still absolutely believes that the correct approach is not breed, but we have to also be able to respond to the fact that we have seen media reports of a number of people bringing their exiled bully dogs over the border to Scotland. We have consulted and we have taken time to engage, and we will bring forward safeguards. It should be said that this is not a ban. Of course, people will still be able to have their exiled bully dogs if they meet the criteria of the regulations that are brought forward. I will say to Anna Sauer that, when it comes to the stricter regime that we have in terms of the control of dogs act, and in terms of the various notices and the stricter regime that we have here in Scotland, I am pleased that we have a stricter regime here in Scotland that is not available elsewhere in the UK. I know that the First Minister is not good in the detail, but the review of the control of dogs act was in the programme for government in 2021 during Covid, so I am not sure that excuse holds any water. In 2022 alone, victims were treated in Scotland's hospital are reported 7,600 times for injuries inflicted by dogs. Those dogs were out of control, often mistreated or poorly trained by their owners. Many of the injuries people sustained disfigured them for life. Christine Hobbson is a post-women in Obann. In December, she was brutally attacked by a German shepherd and sustained serious injuries to her face, leg and arm, and needed specialist plastic surgery. She will be scarred for life emotionally and physically, but nothing that the Government is announcing today would have helped Christine. The Government promised five years ago to take action against irresponsible owners and bearers, not just an individual breed. If the Government can act on Excel bullies, what will it take for them to protect people like Christine and so many others that they have repeatedly promised to do? First Minister, I simply go to Christine for the injuries that she has suffered. To say to Anasawa that we did take action in the back of the work done in 2019, that is why we have a really important regime of dog control notices. That is the regime that I am talking about that does not exist in England and Wales. If Anasawa had the detail in front of him, he would know that. He would also know, of course, that there are currently more than 1,200 active dog control notices in place in Scotland, and Excel bully dogs represent 2 per cent of those DCNs that are in force. One dog attack is, of course, one to many. We have taken a whole range of actions to protect communities as best we possibly can. That dog control notice regime that we have will undoubtedly help in that regard. We will continue to work with Police Scotland, local authorities, the SSPCA and other relevant interests to keep communities safe from the very small minority. We should be clear about that. It is a very small minority of irresponsible dog owners for their dangerous dogs. 7,600 treatments in hospital related to dog attacks in one single year. I do not think that the First Minister should be playing that down, because that will be of extreme concern to families across the country. Humza Yousaf was, of course, justice secretary when this Government promised to review the control of dogs act and still nothing has happened. People like Kirstine should not have to be fearful when they go to work and parents should not have to fear for their kids when they take them to the park. This Government has a responsibility to protect people, not just respond to bad headlines. Too often, sadly, that is the case. We saw it with the infection scandal at the Queen Elizabeth hospital last week and again today with the post office scandal, and now we see it with Excel bully dogs. The Government must commit to stronger powers for councils and the police and make it clear that the responsibility for dogs lies with owners and breeders. Does it accept that we cannot wait until another 7,000 people are harmed before this Government fixes the control of dogs act? First Minister, can I say to Anna Sauer that his third question there took no account at all of the response that I gave to his previous question? That is the problem, because Anna Sauer says that we failed to act if he had stopped just reading the pre-prepared script. He would have, of course, heard me say that we brought in a DCN regime, that dog control notice regime that came in that does not exist in England and Wales. The fact that we have that in place has meant that we have more than 1,200 active dog control notices in place, as we speak. We will continue to work, of course, with Police Scotland, with local authorities, the SSPCA and other relevant stakeholders to keep our communities safe. We have established on top of that an operational working group involving local authorities, Police Scotland, COSLA and key stakeholders to progress this work. We have also commissioned a national dog control notice database to help enforcement agencies to better monitor the control of dogs. When it comes to having to respond to the UK Government's actions—that is what we are having to do in this case—it would not be far better if we did not have to always respond to what the UK Government does and instead have the full powers here in Scotland. 3. Alexander Stewart To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that Scotland has among the worst survival rates for some of the most serious cancers. Cancer means a national priority for the NHS and the Scottish Government, which is why we published a 10-year strategy in June 2023 focused on improving cancer survival and providing equitable access to treatment. It includes a focus on the less-survivable cancers and improving their outcomes. The strategy and the plan take a comprehensive approach to improving patient pathways in cancer from prevention and diagnosis right the way through to treatment and, of course, post-treatment care. It is very heartened by the fact that, overall, cancer mortality in Scotland has decreased by 11 per cent over the past 10 years, but we recognise that we have much more to do, particularly when it comes to less-survivable cancers. I put on record the fact that I know that Alexander Stewart has raised these issues on a number of occasions and the importance that he attaches to this is shared by the Government, too. Alexander Stewart I thank the First Minister for that response. The SNP Government has been responsible for running health for nearly 17 years. That shows that, out of 33 countries of comparable wealth and income levels, Scotland ranks as low as 32nd for the five-year survival from pancreatic cancer, 31st for stomach cancer and 29th for lung cancer. First Minister, you should be ashamed that your Government has allowed the five-year survival rates for those cancers to deteriorate to some of the lowest in the developed world. What action will you take to resolve that? When there are those types of survival rates, there is work for the Scottish Government to do. There is no getting away from that. I have spoken often about my own personal experience in relation to pancreatic cancer. I have lost a dear uncle to pancreatic cancer, so it is an issue that is very personal to me. I should say that there are areas where we compare favourably to those 33 countries in terms of liver cancer, for example, survival rates. Scotland is 12th, whereas the UK overall is 21th in England. There are other cancer types where we are seeing progress, but clearly in other areas such as pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, brain cancer and lung cancer, there is still much more for us to do in relation to what we are doing. I will make sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health writes in detail to Alexander Stewart that what we are doing is trying to speed up diagnosis where we can, and that is how we are investing in our detect cancer early programme. We are also investing in the rapid cancer diagnostic services, which are operational in five NHS boards across Scotland. The early evaluation from those rapid cancer diagnosis services shows that HPV liver and pancreatic cancers are among the most common cancers that are being diagnosed through that pathway. Overall, as I go back to this point and end in this point, overall cancer mortality in Scotland has decreased by 11 per cent over the last 10 years, but less survivable cancers, as Alexander Stewart says, there is clearly still work to do. While Labour MSPs shamefully failed to support minimum unit pricing, a policy that has proven to save lives and reduce hospital munitions since its inception, what assessment has the Scottish Government made on the impact of policies such as minute unit pricing on liver cancer rates in Scotland? Public Health Scotland's valuation of minimum unit pricing shows that MUP has had a very positive impact on health outcomes during the study period. It is estimated to have cut alcohol consumption, alcohol attributable deaths and is likely to have reduced hospital admissions. Public Health Scotland estimates that about half of liver cancers are preventable in the UK, and that is why we continue to take action on the most prevalent factors, particularly alcohol consumption. Prevention of cancers takes longer to realise, but we would be hopeful that MUP impacts will be seen in the future for liver cancers. Our cancer strategy does place a focus on less survivable cancers, including liver cancer. I recently met a courageous group of women from the west of Scotland who shared their experience of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer and being forced to use their family's life savings to fund private treatment in England. According to target ovarian cancer, those in the west of Scotland cannot access life-saving surgery that women in NHS Lothian can access. Consequently, they face poorer outcomes when it comes to survival rates for the disease. It is nothing short of a national scandal that women with ovarian cancer are having to pay for the surgery that they need and deserve because of where they live. Can the First Minister tell us why women in the west of Scotland cannot get surgery and what urgent action is being taken to end this life-threatening postcode lottery? I am happy to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport writes in detail to Jackie Baillie about what actions are being taken. I do not want anybody in the country to know what the condition is but, particularly when it is cancer, to have to wait a day longer than they have to in order to get treatment. We know that earlier that cancer is diagnosed, the earlier that treatment begins, the better chances in relation to survival. That is why we have taken action to increase the number of consultant oncologists. For example, there has been almost 100 per cent increase since the SNP has been in position. We have increased the consultant radiologist by over 66 per cent as well. On private healthcare, again, when Scotland is compared to the rest of the UK, we see fewer people having to sell fund for any private and patient day-case care. Notwithstanding all of that, of course, the work that we are doing in order, particularly on ovarian cancer, is one that I want to see extended right across Scotland so that there is not a postcode lottery of care. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health writes in detail to Miss Bailey. To ask the First Minister in light of reported concerns regarding food labelling being a devolved matter, what the Scottish Government's position is and what impact the UK Government's reported plans to roll out not for EU labelling on food and drink products across the whole of the UK could have on Scotland's food and drink industry. The Government shares the well-documented concerns that Food and Drink Federation Scotland—many food and drink businesses—have highlighted about those labelling plans. The Rural Affairs Secretary, Mary Gougeon, wrote to our UK Government counterpart before Christmas for much-needed clarification on their plans. However, my understanding is that she has not had the courtesy of a response yet. However, we will continue to press the UK Government for answers, not least to the questions of why they are insisting on pursuing a policy that would arbitrarily add costs to all agri-food businesses, not just those who trade specifically with Northern Ireland. That is a move that is disproportionate. It is wholly inappropriate, particularly when consumers are already bearing the burden of added food costs. It is just another example, frankly, of Conservative chaos harming our economy. I thank the First Minister for that response. I agree with the First Minister about the impact and the harm that this will cause many Scottish food and drink businesses. Will the First Minister also agree that, although that might be needed for goods being traded with Northern Ireland, there is no rationale for other trade? Has the Westminster Government shared why it intends to impose that regime? No, they have not. We have again written to them, but of course we have not had the courtesy of a response. There is not any real evidence or convincing argument for why this labelling requirement is necessary. Those in Food and Drink and Stakeholders in Scotland have added so much to our economy and are absolutely scathing about the UK Government's plans. The Food and Drink Federation director for growth, I wonder, says, and I quote, Our members are really clear that the Government's plan to extend not for EU product labelling on a UK-wide basis will hamper growth, hitting investment exports and jobs, while increasing consumer prices and restricting the choice of products. The evidence is clear, and the independent analysis is clear that Brexit is damaging our economy. That is why it is utterly unforgivable that not a single UK-based party is standing up against Brexit, or even proposing that we rejoin the single market, a market that is seven times the size of the UK. The people of Scotland should be given that choice. Do they want to stay in broken Brexit Britain, or do they want to make decisions for ourselves as an independent nation in the European Union? The UK Government will launch a consultation on a new food labelling scheme, which will ensure that consumers know what they are buying, their buying high-quality British produce over imported goods that don't meet UK welfare standards. Does the First Minister support this move, and can he explain how he expects Scottish farmers and fishermen to continue to provide high welfare and environmental standard food when his SNP budget is cutting £46 million from the rural affairs portfolio? Another Brexit burden for businesses in Scotland to have to bear, even though, of course, we did not vote for Brexit, but the damage the burdens of Brexit are being imposed upon our businesses up and down Scotland. I do not think that businesses are lining up to thank Conservatives for the imposition of Brexit. Quite the opposite. We have, of course, even the British retail consortium saying that, given that labelling is intended to prevent goods from GBs entering the EU through Northern Ireland, it is unclear why such labelling is necessary for all goods sold in Great Britain. That will only add unnecessary costs at a time when the cost of living is already so high. The SNP is the only party that is standing up against Brexit, the only party that says that we should be rejoining the European Union, rejoining, of course, that single market that is seven times the size of the UK market. When the choice is so clear, it is not one of the Conservatives' fear, the verdict of the Scottish people. To ask the First Minister what percentage of the premises contracted for delivery of superfast broadband under the R100 scheme have still to be connected? All homes and businesses across Scotland can currently access the superfast broadband service. The R100 contracts are going beyond that by extending access to gigabit-capable broadband that is over 30 times faster than our original commitment. Our programme does remain on track to complete build and ensure that all contracted premises are connected by 2028. So far, over 36,100 premises have been connected and the remainder will be phased between now and 2028. The Scottish Government has prioritised investment in digital connectivity in the 24-25 budget, despite, of course, swinging cuts from the UK Government, recognising that digital connectivity is a key building block for a green and growing economy. Dr Slomstone, the R100 scheme was meant to connect over 114,000 premises, mainly in our rural areas, by 2021. From a freedom of information request, we know that only 29 per cent of those premises have been connected, and the figures in the north are even worse, with only 15 per cent delivered. The scheme for North Scotland has slipped to 2028 seven years late. Does the First Minister accept that the abject failure by his Government is leaving our rural communities behind, and will the R100 scheme be delayed any further? First of all, we have a strong track record of delivering successful digital infrastructure. Our broadband initiatives have delivered almost 1 million connections to date, but for Douglas Lumsden to ask about telecoms. When telecoms is wholly reserved to the UK Government, you could not mark his neck with a blow torch, Presiding Officer, because we have a strong track record. In fact, when it comes to rural Scotland, we have invested three times more in the R100 north contract than we have in the central or south contract. Any suggestion that North of Scotland has been neglected is simply untrue. Despite the fact that telecoms legislation is wholly reserved to Westminster, the UK Government has invested just £49.4 million of the R100 programme. That stands in stark contrast to the £592 million that the Scottish Government has invested. If we left it to the UK Government, we would all be using dial-up modems. Thank God and thank goodness for the SNP stepping in. Through our efforts, of course, we have delivered over 1 million broadband connections to Scotland. We must move on, and I call Beatrice Wishart. First Minister may recall media coverage of the eye-watering quote of £725,000 given to Shetland residents to get connected to superfast broadband. The broadband voucher scheme, even when pulled with neighbours, would not have covered the cost. Another constituent is investigating the possibility of a community scheme but finds that inflation has impacted schemes' real-terms value. Is it time for a rethink of the current voucher scheme offer? I am happy to look at the important issue that Beatrice Wishart does raise. We have had some success when it comes to our R100 programme on a number of our islands and sometimes our most remote islands. Of course, Beatrice Wishart is asking me about Shetland in particular, but when it comes to our contract build on Fair Isle, it was delivered almost two years ahead of schedule in one of the country's most challenging rural locations. What I would say to Beatrice Wishart is that the issues that she raised are important. Of course, if there are tweaks that we can make, particularly understanding the complexities in our island communities, we are always happy to consider that. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that information on sexually transmitted infections is accessible in light of STIQD and the reported rising number of cases of sexually transmitted infections in Scotland. Ensuring that people have access to the information and services that they need to make informed choices and to take care of their sexual health is absolutely vital, which is why there are outcomes in our sexual health and blood-borne virus action plan. The plan that was published in November just last year sets out the priority areas for action over the next three years and is backed by £1.7 million of Government funding. The Scottish Government is funding a number of projects to support those priorities, including the development of a new sexual health website hosted by NHS Inform and production of accessible animated information resources on key sexual health topics, including STI testing in a range of community languages. Vaccinations against STIs also continue to be important in the protection of treatment and disease. Research published by the BMJ last year found that young people in rural and island communities face practical and social barriers to support for sexual wellbeing. Can the First Minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that access to timely STI testing in those areas? That is a really important point that everyone tweed rightly raises around the particular complexities and nuances that rural communities face in relation to sexual health care. Rural communities face very unique challenges when it comes to accessing healthcare, and sexual health is no different to that. That is why we do not believe that one size fits all when it comes to delivering healthcare in particular. NHS boards are the experts on their communities, which is why we work with boards to ensure appropriate tailored approaches that are suitable to local needs. There are a number of projects that we have invested through our sexual health and BBV action plan, which include a significant focus on rural communities. Those include, for example, outreach services in Ayrshire and Arran and exploring the delivery of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and primary care in Grampian. Given the importance that the First Minister places on the issue, can I ask the First Minister to acknowledge that there is often limited access to in-person sexual health services, particularly in rural areas? Even in more urban areas, clinic times can be limited to one session per week, and NHS inform indicates workforce pressures are causing operational hours to be changeable. Gareth, in all of that, can I ask the First Minister what additional investment has been made in sexual health services to ensure that face-to-face appointments can be provided appropriately when requested? I think that the point that has been made by the members is very important indeed. Of course, there will be a number of people who want that face-to-face service. There will be a number of people who do not want that face-to-face service, and we should say that all of us should collectively that there is no stigma in relation to sexual health. People should be able to access the care that they want when they want it, however they want it to be a face-to-face service or otherwise. On the funding that we are providing, I have mentioned the action plan. It is backed by 1.7 million pounds of funding to improve sexual health and bloodborne virus outcomes. Grants totaling £800,000 have been distributed between a whole wide range of projects, including high-quality innovative projects, with health boards, third sector organisations and academia. Many of them provide that face-to-face service that Carol Mock rightly raises in terms of wider funding for the health service. Of course, I am very pleased that, notwithstanding the fact that we have swinging cuts from the UK Government in terms of our budget, we have increased our investment in the NHS to a record 19.5 billion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister will be aware of the McLeur Solicitors Collapse, which happened in 2021, leaving an estimated 100,000 people affected UK-wide. The firm was a Greenock-based company with many clients locally. The trust's accession in Scotland Bill passed in December, and the current regulation of legal services of Scotland Bill will hopefully make similar situations in the future more manageable. However, with the First Minister providing assurance that the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be supported if they require it to deal with the expected increase in complaints relating to McLeurs, as former clients will become aware of the collapse and as public information events take place similar to the one that was hosted at the weekend in Greenock with the SLCC earlier this week, which was attended by 150 people. Yes, I am hopeful that the SLCC will be properly funded. I will come to that point very shortly. I am aware of this matter. I appreciate that, as Stuart McMillan has rightly said, the distress that this continues to cause. I cannot comment on individual cases that the Scottish Government has taken proactive steps to mitigate against such a situation in the future. Stuart McMillan again is right to raise the issue of the regulation of legal services of Scotland Bill. He introduces authorisation of legal businesses, bringing benefits such as greater consistency in regulating legal firms, enabling the regulator to identify and address deficiencies early doors. I understand the concerns that the member raises. The SLCC, in terms of funding, is funded by a levy paid by legal professions in Scotland. The SLCC requires to forecast trends and complaints when considering their budget in order to set the levy. Any proposed levy does take into account the consideration of potentially increasing complaints, such as complaints relating to the matter that has been raised. Pam Gossel Thank you, Presiding Officer. Early this week, I attended a protest against Easton-Barcher Council's plans to close the Milan daycare centre. Milan provides a fantastic tailored service to elderly and vulnerable ethnic minority clients. Its service users are all saying that Milan should be a model for the rest of Scotland to follow rather than something to be closed down. Can I ask the First Minister, does he agree that local services should cater to all communities, including the needs of ethnic minorities? What can the Scottish Government do to save Milan and other centres like that? I thank Pam Gossel for raising the issue of the Milan centre. Just this week, yesterday, in fact, I met with the Scottish Hindu Foundation, a recently established organisation speaking on behalf of the Hindu community. They raised the issue of the Milan centre to me. I said that we would engage with the local authority in this case, Easton-Barcher, in order to see what more we could do in order to assist. Of course, those are decisions that are being made by local authorities. That is why, when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, the Deputy First Minister announced her budget, she announced an uplift for local government. I agree that community services are incredibly important. They should cater to the needs of all of our diverse communities. What does not help, of course, is that we continue to receive a £500 million cut in our block grant since 2022-23, but, despite those swingeing cuts, we have decided to prioritise local government by giving them an uplift in 24-25. Glasgow City Council presented the service with an unworkable budget of £650,000 down from £1.5 million. However, the funding was previously ring-fenced by the Scottish Government, who signed off a reduction in the funding in a letter on 31 May last year. That decision has effectively resulted in the closure of the service. Is the First Minister content that there is now no bed facility for women offenders with drug use as the main problem that has kept hundreds of women out of jail? The Lillia Centre in Maryhill, which is brilliant, cited by the cabinet secretary in her response, is not an alternative to custody disposal. Ministers surely cannot wash their hands of this tragic outcome. I know the 218 project well. I have visited the 218 project in the past when I was on the Justice Committee many years ago. It is a project that I know is doing some excellent work. That is, of course, a decision that was made by Glasgow City Council in relation to the services that it is able to fund. I am more than happy, of course, to ask the Justice Secretary to engage with Glasgow City Council on this particular issue, because I know that the excellent work that turning point 218 has done over the years. We know, of course, by giving that really intensive support to female offenders that we can stop that cycle of re-offending. That is a project that I value very, very highly. Of course, we have entained our budget in relation to the national mission dealing with drug deaths in particular, but this Government, nobody should be in any doubt, believes in community justice disposals. That is why I will ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to pick this issue up with Glasgow City Council. Kevin Stewart I thank you, Presiding Officer, this morning. It was sad to hear that Marx and Spencers have decided to close their Aberdeen-Saint Nicholas street store, a blow that has been lessened by the fact that they intend to invest and expand at Union Square in Aberdeen. However, the site of St Nicholas Street on Union Street is a very important one, and I have asked the local authority and other stakeholders to come together to form a task force to ensure that we can have a bright future for that site and Union Street as a whole. The First Minister has previously ensured investment in our Union Street project to help with regeneration of Aberdeen city centre. Can I ask him if the Government would serve in such a task force if it comes to fruition? I hope that he will agree to do so. I will be certainly happy to give that consideration, as the member has already rightly said. We value our city centres, our town centres and we are working hard to make sure that they are as vibrant as possible. Flourishing in vibrant city centres is essential, in fact, for the social and economic wellbeing of our cities in Aberdeen as well. That is why we provided, as the member said, £400,000 to the community-led Aberdeen hour union street initiative, which aims to revitalise the town centre building on the city centre's regeneration plans. However, if Kevin Stewart can furnish me with the details of the task force that he is proposing, then, of course, we will give that to your consideration. Four months have passed since the Scottish Government announced a full public inquiry into Professor Eljam El, but we still have no confirmation of the appointed chair, no confirmation of the start date of the one-to-one clinical reviews, and, as revealed by The Courier newspaper, no confirmation from you, as First Minister, that the public inquiry will start in 2024. I ask the First Minister for confirmation on all those points. It is fully my expectation that the public inquiry starts in 2024. By that, of course, we should have a judge appointed, an inquiry chair appointed, very shortly, I would hope, because the Lord President rightly has been involved in the process of appointing an inquiry chair and discussions, as I can say, are at a very advanced stage. Planning for the independent clinical review is also well under way, and further discussions are continuing early next week. We will see more as soon as we can, as with the announcement of the inquiry, we will ensure that former patients are informed directly wherever possible. However, I would like to say to those who have suffered greatly at the hands of Professor Eljam El. We do not want them waiting a moment longer in order for the public inquiry to begin, and I can give them absolute confidence that there is a lot of work happening somewhat behind the scenes at the moment with the appropriate authorities, including the Lord President, to ensure that an appropriate inquiry chair is appointed. Thank you. That concludes First Minister's questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Ruth Maguire, and there will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.