 The next item of business is topical questions. In order to get in as many members as possible, short and succinct questions and responses would be appreciated. Before calling the first question, I would remind members of the sub-judice rule and request that members do not make specific reference to cases that have been referred to the courts. At question number 1, Faisal Chowdhury. To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to ensure that all people who were potentially wrongfully convicted as a result of the reported horizon scandal are supported in coming forward if they wish for their conviction to be overturned. The horizon scandal is rightly causing great concern and it is important to first of all recognise the tireless work of campaigners who have led efforts for justice. Anyone wrongly convicted as a result of the horizon scandal should have their conviction reversed and be entitled to compensation. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has already referred seven cases back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal, and two of those have had their convictions overturned on appeal so far. However, we are looking at what more can be done. We are looking at the idea of a pardon scheme. I am conscious that the UK Government has made a compensation scheme that requires a conviction to be reversed by an appeal court, and that is a requirement before you can be in receipt of compensation. I have therefore written to the UK Secretary of State for Justice to ask for a meeting to discuss how best we can work together and ensure that anyone wrongly convicted as a result of the horizon scandal can have their conviction reversed and still be entitled to compensation. By the end of 2023, only 16 people in Scotland had come forward to have their conviction overturned. There are many more who were not convicted, but for whom the false accusations severely impacted their reputation, career and mental health. The full member of victims in Scotland is not yet known. What discussion have the Scottish Government had with the Crown Office and the Prosecutor's Fiscal Service regarding the number of people in Scotland who were potentially wrongly prosecuted? Does it expect to be liable for the compensation cost? Mr Shawrie is right to find out the massive personal impact on all those who have been affected. Of course, the Scottish Government will have discussions with a full range of justice partners, because it is imperative that, in this Parliament, we stand up for everyone in Scotland who has been affected by the horizon scandal. It might be useful, Presiding Officer, if I just quickly intimate the proactive steps that have already been taken by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. They have proactively on receipt of information on those who may be affected, and they have proactively written to around 80 people who could be affected with information and encouraged people to make applications to the criminal conviction review body. It is very important that we send out a message to those who believe that they have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice and that they make those applications to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which, of course, is continuing its work. Of course, it is important to say that the appeal court is also continuing its work. However, the actions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, I believe, are the first systemic effort of any jurisdiction in the UK to contact all those individuals who are potentially affected. I was expecting an answer if we are liable for compensation. The post-office has set aside £244 million in compensation for the potential victims. However, many victims have now died without being about to claim this compensation to clear their names. Yet Fujitsu, the company that created the horizon system, has not faced any financial repercration and has reportedly been awarded more than 150 Government contracts since. What discussion are the Scottish Government having with the UK Government regarding the responsibility of Fujitsu in this scandal? As I intimated in my original answer, I have, of course, written to the UK Government about how we can work together and take matters forward. On the issue of compensation, it is important to recognise that anyone convicted because of the failings of the horizon IT system can apply for compensation via the scheme that is set up by the UK Government, and it is important that we encourage and support people to do so. The scheme is available for anyone to apply if they have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice where their convictions were reversed on appeal out of time or if they have spent time in prison as a result of a wrongful conviction or charge. Does the cabinet secretary agree that any conviction that has resulted since the introduction of the flawed horizon system must be unsafe and flawed and should be quashed? Will the Scottish Government, working with the UK Government, consider, if necessary, emergency legislation so that the greatest miscarriage of justice of our time can be redressed? Finally, in order to be sure that everyone whose lives have been ruined gets compensation, would the cabinet secretary consider taking proactive steps, either herself or through an agency, to reach out to every single sub-postmaster and mistress that has possibly been affected by that in Scotland in order to make sure that they get the compensation that they richly deserve? As I again intimated on my original answer, the Scottish Government is open to taking further action. We want to take action that is first and foremost most effective for those who have been impacted by the scandal here in Scotland. In that sense, we have an open mind to the best way forward. We will, of course, work with the UK Government, who have particular responsibilities in this regard. I would also intimate again to Mr Ewing that the action taken by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been very proactive in going back to spring 2020. The commission decided that it is a matter of policy that would make any reasonable effort to locate those who might have been affected and to encourage them to apply to the commission so that any conviction could be overturned. Therefore, that is the gateway to ensuring that people receive their appropriate compensation. I assure Mr Ewing and other members that we are, of course, looking at the wide range of issues. First and foremost, we want to play our part in standing up for people in Scotland who have been affected. We want to play our part as a responsibility to play our part in helping to right a wrong undertaken by the Post Office Limited and the scandal surrounding that. During three years as justice secretary, it appears that Humza Yousaf did not hold a single meeting about the Post Office horizon scandal, a scandal that is now firmly on the agenda because of a TV drama. Former police officer, Myra Maryphilp, was not convicted, but she went to her grave wrongly accused of theft. Her daughter, Myra, who has campaigned doggedly for years, wants to know when all Scottish victims will have their convictions quashed and names cleared and points out that those powers lie with the Scottish ministers. What I will certainly endeavour to do on behalf of this Government is to work collaboratively with everyone to ensure that everyone who is affected in Scotland can access justice and can right a wrong where that has done. It is unfortunate that Mr Finlay has sought to overly politicise this matter when this problem has been in the making since 1999 by the Post Office, a UK-wide body scrutinised under reserved powers by successive UK Government ministers. Of course, where he is correct to say is that the Post Office cannot prosecute in Scotland, only the Crown Office in Scotland can prosecute the independent Crown Office and independent of politicians. If the scandal shows one thing, it should be that the prize is having an independent prosecution system and not one where we have a vested interest such as the Post Office able to pursue prosecutions because there are now hundreds of people living with the consequences of that, not just here in Scotland but across the UK. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its position on further regulating the ownership of American XL bulldogs in Scotland, in light of reports that widespread rehoming from England to Scotland is raising public safety and animal welfare concerns? The Scottish Government is concerned to hear reports of XL bulldogs being moved to Scotland for rehoming. I have made it clear to the UK Government and there should be no impact to Scotland as a consequence of the policy that has been implemented. The UK Government's response stated that if an XL bully owner in England and Wales travelled to Scotland and sold or otherwise transferred or abandoned the dog to someone in Scotland, it is unlikely to be an offence. The criminal law should provide clarity on whether an offence has been committed or not and the unintended consequences of the UK Government's policy is that we are now seeing influx of XL bully dogs coming to Scotland. It is important to ensure that Scotland does not become a safe haven or a dumping ground for the XL bully dogs from England and Wales. I can confirm to Jamie Greene and the chamber that, in the light of recent events, ministers are urgently reviewing the policy on XL bully dogs and public safety will be paramount in our deliberations and a timetable for any policy change will be updated to Parliament imminently. The unintended consequences we are seeing are not a result of UK legislation but as a result of this Scottish Government failing to take action leading to the situation where there is huge amount of anecdotal evidence of rehoming across the border into Scotland. There is an online Facebook group, which has over 20,000 members, where people are discussing this very issue day in, day out. I understand their very well meaning as an animal lover. I understand the sentiments behind some of this rehoming, but we do not understand the full consequences of what will happen. The First Minister was very clear to the media yesterday when he said, I think that it is important for us to make very clear that Scotland is not a safe haven for XL bully dogs. I agree with him, minister. Will the minister now explain to the public what action this Scottish Government will take to ensure that the rhetoric on this is followed by action? Given the lack of notice of the decision from the UK Government and the context of the different approach of dog control, I and officials have been reviewing the evidence on the situation in Scotland and have met with a wide variety of stakeholders over the winter to consider the evidence and their views as to what work is best in the Scottish context and to consider any unintended consequences. I have met with the SPCA Dogs Trust Dogs Control Coalition individual dog clinical behaviours. I have met a victim of a dog attack, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross, Edinburgh Cat and Dog Home, Communication Workers Union this morning, Police Scotland on Thursday and also the National Dog Warden Association. I have also instructed officials to undertake regional engagements with local stakeholders to look at ways for partners to work together to improve operational responses and enforcement and to aid community engagement to help to promote more responsible dog ownership. As I said in my first answer, this is under urgent review at the moment. It has been under urgent review for months, minister, and I am going to be frank because I have been raising this issue for months in this chamber. Everything that we warned might happen is sadly now happening. We have already seen the utterly horrific story over the weekend of a dog that was trafficked from England to Scotland. It was unsuccessfully attempted to be sold online. The dog was then horrendously beaten to death and left on the street. I would not want to be the minister in charge of any policy who dithered and delayed a day longer than is necessary on this issue and another tragedy occurs. So please minister, before it is too late, will the Scottish Government now announce a ban on these dogs before a single life, human or otherwise, is lost? While the UK Government announced its decision to ban this dog breed with no advance notice or consultation, we are approaching this in an evidence-based manner. No new breed type has been banned in the list for more than 30 years and it is important to carefully listen to the views of expert dog control interests to help inform our policy approach in this area. As I said in my first answer, it is under urgent review at the moment and any policy change will be told to Parliament imminently. The Scottish SPC has said that there is no need for a caring owner in England or Wales to move a dog to Scotland as it got into the 31st of January to register and comply with conditions for exemption. So any owner doing so after the first of December will be committing an offence. So can I ask the minister, if SL Bully Dogs are being bought to Scotland, as Jamie Greene said, there is evidence of that, how will Scotland prevent this as long as it appears to be a safe haven, and is the answer not lie in being more aligned with England and Wales not just to ensure that we can prevent this, but to ensure that we also comply with the welfare of dogs who some are being destroyed on the back of this policy? We do not make more sense to align with England and Wales. As I have said, urgent consideration is being put in place regarding this. I would say to any dog owner that they would need to understand if a possible ban does become introduced in Scotland. At this time, any purchase of an Excel bully dog would be made within the context, which may suggest that it would be preferable not to acquire any such dog at the present time in Scotland. Like everyone, I am appalled at dog attacks, but the answer does not lie in adopting these hasty and simplistic regulations in the same way that the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 has not worked. Can I ask, therefore, if the minister will consider amending the Control of Dogs Scotland Act, which intervenes early when there are behavioural problems with anybody of dogs, a bill that I introduced and makes it more effective as it places the blame, the responsibility, when it lies on the breeder and the owner, not the dog? There is consideration that there was a working group in the current legislation that is being reconsidered at the moment. I understand that the bill has been introduced by Ms Graham M to highlight and raise awareness on responsible dog ownership, which is something that I think that we can all support. The Government welcomes any proposals that seek to improve animal welfare. I look forward to working with Ms Graham on the bill. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide funding for grants for those households and businesses that flooded during Storm Garrett in light of providing such funding for those affected by Storm Abbott. Minister Tom Arthur. I would like to recognise the efforts of local recovery partnerships who have worked so hard to respond to Storm Garrett and express my sympathy for those who have had their lives disrupted by flooding. The Scottish Government is committed to playing our part in supporting communities through such events. The Scottish Government provides £42 million annually to local authorities to fulfil their flood risk management obligations. We have committed an additional £150 million over the course of this Parliament to improve flood resilience. We also support communities through the Scottish welfare fund through which grants can be provided to low-income households for emergencies such as flooding. Storm Abbott was a highly unusual wearer event. Given the almost unprecedented Met Office red warnings for rain, we have provided additional grant support for households and businesses that flooded in affected local authority areas. However, we are sympathetic to the situation following Storm Garrett and we will continue to engage with affected councillors. Willie Rennie. I am afraid that that is not good enough because for my constituents who were flooded out of their homes just days after Christmas, it was just as traumatic for them as it was for the people of Angus who did receive grants. Please do not insult them by saying that the situation in Angus was exceptional. If you have two feet of water in your house when you wake up in the morning, it is exceptional. Will the minister reconsider that decision? I recognise the sentiment that Willie Rennie expresses on behalf of his constituents. For any individual household that is affected, it is going to be a traumatic event, particularly just days after Christmas. The member asked me to reconsider my decision. I just want to clarify in case he did not infer from my answer to his additional question. The decision has not been taken. We are giving this careful consideration. We have engaged with Fife Council. They are currently preparing reports as we speak and we will give that further consideration in due course. However, we are very sympathetic to the situation faced by Mr Rennie's constituents and we are giving careful consideration to what further support can be provided. Willie Rennie. I will take that as a kind of a yes, and I hope it is. He is not just flannoling me, because those people are flooded out with their homes now and their businesses have been destroyed. Mohammed Khaled has lost his business when the water surged into the shop, destroying the shop, the stock and also the expensive fridges and freezers. Matt Hooper woke up to two feet of water around his bed and his fridge was floating in his living room. He is now homeless. Both of them have tried to get help, and none has been available. Will the minister come to Cooper and tell them, if he is not going to give them money, to their face that they will not get that money, or he could come to Cooper and tell them they are going to get the money and the sooner the better? I would say that both myself and indeed the cabinet secretary, Mary McCallann, are happy to engage with the member directly. As I said in my original answer, I express my deepest sympathy to all who have been affected by the flooding. As I said as well, we are giving careful consideration and we will continue to engage with our partners and local government to consider what further support can be provided. I am keen to get more members in, so let's have concise questions and responses. I call Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Funding is critical to support communities recovering from storms and associated flood damage, but so is long-term planning and management to mitigate the impact, build up resilience and share best practice. Watercourses across council boundaries and local authorities might be reluctant to instigate measures without direct local benefits. Without an holistic approach to river basin management, communities will be left to suffer. Will the minister investigate plans to establish an organisation that is responsible for river basin management that is also accountable to communities? Thank the member for his supplementary advice. He will appreciate the specific areas that he raises in his considered question live within the responsibility of my colleague, Mary McCallann. We are happy to ensure that the member's remarks are passed on to Ms McCallann, so we will be happy to engage with her member and provide her with a written response. I have been contacted by many constituents across Angus and South Aberdeenshire who have lost so much due to repeated flooding over recent months. Drainage systems are no longer adequate, other flood prevention measures insufficient and crisis funds and insurance do not cover the losses that are experienced. Given that flooding is becoming more prevalent and severe, what is the Scottish Government's long-term plan for flood prevention and mitigation to ensure that people can continue to live and work safely in the affected areas? While no country can mitigate the risk of flooding entirely since 2008, the Scottish Government has made available £42 million per year to local authorities to invest in flood risk management actions. As I said earlier, that is an addition to a further £150 million that has been made available over the course of this Parliament to support the delivery of flood resilience measures. We have also been working with stakeholders to develop a first flood resilience strategy for Scotland, with communities at its heart, which will form an integral part of shaping a climate resilience Scotland. The strategy aims to initiate a transformational change to flood management to adapt our places and set Scotland in a long-term course towards a sustainable level of flood resilience. We will move to a public consultation in due course, with an intention to publish a strategy later this year. As a member whose constituency has a very high level of flood risk, I have to say that we have all seen, despite what Willie Rennie says, the lamentable lack of support given to the residents and businesses in Breachan specifically. FOIs that I have in my position show that, even as late as last month, Angus Council was still struggling to find capacity and resources to even begin to pick up the pieces. My question is very simple. Why is the Scottish Government so slow at responding to these crises? What lessons can they learn from the rapid response that we saw down south to storm Henk? Isn't it time that ministers got their act together? I see that. The front bench is laughing at this question, which is a ridiculous response, frankly. The minister should be ashamed. Isn't it time that ministers got their act together on flood emergency response full stop? I compare and contrast Mr Kerr's question with the original question from Willie Rennie, which was absolutely focused on the interests of his constituents. I think that it is a shame that Mr Kerr chose to try to get into a political point score. That is a serious issue that affects all countries. We have established a task force that has met in multiple occasions responding to the particularly exceptional challenges that were resulted from storm Babett earlier last year. We are committed to working with our local authority partners and local recovery groups to ensure that we can improve our flood resilience both in the long term and in responding to specific challenges. However, as we recognise from those events, climate change and the implications of climate change are not simply a matter for the future. Their whiff is here and now, which makes it utterly lamentable and shameful that the UK Government—the UK Conservative Government—has so drastically watered down its commitment to net zero.