 Maintlenni gwaith i'r gweithio gweithiau. Rwy'n iddy'n bwysig y cael ei ddweud o'r ym lŷn ers ei ddweud, ac mae'r ddweud yn ddechrau ar y gweithfeydd. Llyfrgell i ddim yn gweithio, ac mae'n ddweud i'n ddweud o'r cyfrifolau yn rhywbeth. Gweithio ar y gwbl ydyn nhw a elef am hyn, i'r gweithfeydd y Gweithfeydd o'r gweithfeydd i'r gweithfeyddon ddynaid yn dryf. Cyngorol Thank You for spending the time to be with us. The meeting will last around an hour and a half and will take a comfort break at around the hour mark. My conveners have indicated that they wish to raise more than one issue and I will do my best to call all conveners at least once in order to do so. Obviously it would be helpful if questions and responses could be as brief as possible as with previous meetings. Will the First Felly mae'n fawr o ddod amdanoedd ychydig gyda'r wych o ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r grwng sitys. Ieithi wrth gŵr, dwi'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o bwysig ar gyfer cyflwrs. ein cofUSd Fynli Carsin o'r graffithu i Dau'r Ffairau yng Nghymru ar gŵr, Fynli. Rhaid i ni'n cael ei ddod o y myfodffort i ddarparu cyflwydigdsau ar gyfer ynghylch Government committees report on agriculture rural communities Scotland bill? First of all, good afternoon to all of the conveners, and we genuinely appreciate the chance. In this forum, to get into depth on some issues that perhaps other forums do not allow for and in terms of framework bills more generally, let me say from a Scottish Government perspective. we will be doing something with that way is there to be done. Ond byddai weithio o'r adnodd i ni gwyll Hagwrs Gwll嵐, nid oedda o'r adnodd i ni i'n cofio mewn mawr, gan gilytol yn rhywbeth gyda'r adnodd yanodd i'r adnodd i chi'n gyffredinol gwaith. Ond ein gweithio siaradau, ac yn llawer o'r adnodd i'u gwelwch ym diffצio iawn, y llei Sainioedd Cyfnodd i chi i'n gweld i chi'n gweld i chi i'r adnodd, i chi i'n gweld i chi'n gweld o'i gweld i chi i'n gweld i chi i'n gweld i chi'n gweld o'r adnodd o ddatblygu mor gwasanaethau a rydym yn gyfifio gyda nhw y gwirionedd i gael eirin o eu gwasanaethau a rhai, deall, gyda gyda'i ghaith cymdeinol iawn gyda ddodd tariatau ofaith atiag i gael ei gwaith that is generally shared across the Parliament. So, when it comes to framework bills, we understand the concerns that are there. We will always work with the Parliament, including of course its committees, to determine whether or not there are further measures that we can bring in that would allow further scrutiny, for example, further down the line as legislation progresses i'n cael ei bodai'r ddysgu yn yw'r perthysgol ei ddasturio'r byl? Mae'r ffwrdd o'r ddysgu yn gynghwytoethol wedi'u ddysgu'r byl, mae gennul o ddysgu'r byl yn cymdeithasol i ddysgu'r byl. Mae'r ddysgu'r byl yn cyfrifolol i ddysgu'r byl. Mae'r ddysgu'r byl yn cyfrifolol i ddysgu'r byl i ddysgu'r byl, ond y ffordd o'r ffordd i ddysgu'r byl yn sefydliad a'r ddysgu'r byl i ddysgu'r yw'r First Minister has made a significant policy announcement at the NFU conference, despite a specific request from the committee that any such announcement should be made to the committee, and no correspondence relating to that announcement has actually been received as of yet. It is around the scrutiny. My next question is specifically relating to timetables and timetable for stage 1 I would suggest that we need more time between stage 1 reports being published and the debate to allow the Scottish Government more time to respond to specific conclusions and recommendations. We have the committee received last night the Government's response to the stage 1 report, which we will be debating today, which gives us no time to digest what is in it. The report, sadly, spends more time noting everything and not engaging with the substantive points that the committee has set out. Can you reflect on how, particularly with framework bills, more time should be given between stage 1 reports being published so that to allow the Government to put together a more substantive response to committee's concerns? My view is that some of the issues that Finlay Carson raises are very legitimate indeed. I will personally consider some of the stage 1 responses that are still due. I hope that Finlay Carson will recognise, as I am sure he will, that the legislative timetable is packed. We have a couple of bills that perhaps we would not even have anticipated, so the issue around horizon cases, for example, is not something that was previously in our legislative programme. We will now seek to bring forward Scottish-specific expedited legislation on that. There is no doubt of the very busy legislative timetable that we have. That is important for Government. We also recognise that it is really important and has implications for our colleagues in Parliament and on committees as well. I will personally look to Endeavour to take away from this session what Finlay Carson has requested. Can we look at what stage 1s are due, our responses to those stage 1s, and making sure that there is an appropriate gap between stage 1 response and the debate in Parliament? I think that that is a very fair ask indeed. I will go back to the point that I made about framework bills. I can give an absolute assurance to Finlay Carson that we do not consider framework bills as, for example, an easy option or something that we take lightly. That is why the majority of the bills that we bring forward are not framework bills. We do that where we require the necessary flexibility. I think that there is a good reason for that in this particular bill, but I take the point that I made around that greater time gap between a stage 1 response and the debate itself. I will personally take a look at that. I am happy to come back to the convener through the convener on this occasion. Thank you very much, convener. Good afternoon. First Minister, the finance and public administration committee has become increasingly concerned that the financial memoranda relating to framework bills that are coming before us. Will we be supportive of co-designing new legislation? I have to say that our collective view is that this should be undertaken before stage 1, wherever possible. An example of that is, of course, the national care service bill, where, if we had accepted the original financial memorandum, it would be somewhat different from what has finally emerged. The alternative of doing so after primary legislation has passed does undermine scrutiny and accountability, but it also increases the likelihood of financial risk, overspend and inefficiency. Given the state of affairs, why framework bills become almost the norm and will the Scottish Government look again at such bills with a view to inclusion of all necessary provisions in primary legislation? There is a fair critique of the financial memorandum around the national care service bill. We recognise that when the committee gave us its report and expressed publicly its concerns and expressed them to the Government as well around the national care service. It goes back to my response to Finlay Carson. National care service is another example of a bill. All of us in the Parliament agree that there should be a significant level of co-design of policy with stakeholders. Although, of course, we can do that ahead of the introduction of a bill and that is appropriate to do, a lot of the issues of a national care service, as an example, are very significant and very detailed. I will have to work through their development with stakeholders. It is therefore important that we do not delay the appropriate legislation to create the national care service while co-design is happening and while that policy continues to be developed. However, I take the point around costs and risk that, if that cost is not detailed to the committee, there could be a potential for overrun. I do accept that. I do not agree that the framework bill has become the norm, although I take the point that the member makes that we should certainly not seek to make it the norm, that we should ensure that it is only used as a last resort and that it is appropriate for it to be the case. We are already reflecting on the specific costs in relation to the national care service. I think that the Government is making difficulties for itself, quite frankly. The national care service bill is one in point. It is clearly a case in point. What people want to know is what this bill is going to deliver at the earliest stage possible. That has to be in primary legislation, not something that may have bells and whistles upon it. I do not agree that we are in a situation whereby it allows the delivery of legislation at an earliest possible date, because that legislation is not now programmed to 28, 29. Clearly, the framework bill is not allowing effective scrutiny, and it is not actually enabling bills to come forward and be implemented for the people who need that legislation and act at an earliest possible date. I would suggest that, even within a framework bill, and if you take the national care service as an example, we can be really clear about what the intent of the bill is, what the bill is trying and attempting to do. The principles of the national care service are explicitly understood because they are there within the bill. I accept the point fully that both Kenneth Gibson and Finlay Carson are making, that a framework bill, by its very nature, there will be challenges around scrutiny and what I can endeavour to do. We managed to do this to a point with the national care service, but I was happy to reflect what more we can do. When it comes to further regulations, when it comes to further secondary legislation that may be required as part of any bill, that gives the maximum opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, because the point of the framework bill is to give us flexibility. We do not fear scrutiny, particularly on something that is significant as a national care service. In fact, we are very much welcome it. I know Sue Webber has got a question on financial memorandus. I will invite Sue Webber on behalf of the Education Children and Young People Committee to raise your question. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. You have spoken at length about the lack of detail in the national care service financial memorandum. Our committee, the financial memorandum from the Children's Care and Justice Bill, significantly underestimated the cost of its proposed changes. We made it clear in our stage 1 report and in our approach to stage 2 that better, more accurate costings were essential and required. It is not the only committee to raise the concerns about the absence of this information potentially hindering legislative scrutiny. We had correspondence from the Finance and Resource Committee sharing concerns. What action are you taking, First Minister, to ensure that the Scottish Government always provides full and detailed and the best possible information on costs arising from proposed legislation in order to assist parliamentary scrutiny? We will always aim and endeavour to give the best possible estimate around what any proposed legislation may well cost and the implications of that legislation. We do that primarily because we of course want to ensure that that is scrutinised by Parliament and by the committees of this Parliament, but we also do it because we need to know the cost of it for our future budget, so it does not serve any purpose in the estimates of the financial memorandum being off by any amount whatsoever. Again, from my perspective, my direction to all cabinet secretaries and ministers is very clear that when a financial memorandum goes to any committee, it should be given detailed consideration to the best possible estimate. There will always be estimates to a point given the nature of legislation, how things can develop, so on and so forth, but we always endeavour to give the best and see where we give an example of where some of the costs have been off and we have to accept that critique as a fair one, but it is nobody's interest. Neither this Parliament nor the Government's for any financial memorandum to be wildly off, so I can give an absolute assurance to Sue Webber that my clear direction to both ministers and cabinet secretaries is to provide the most accurate detail that we possibly can. If there is any reason why detail cannot be presented, it is to be really up front with the committee on the reasons for that. I suppose that Kenny Gibson spoke about the additional risk that this approach can have, but those are some of our most vulnerable people in the specific bill, and the costs were significantly underestimated and what the changes and challenges might be to those that would be involved in implementing the legislation. I think that all the evidence that we had was the uncertainty, the fear and how we were going to implement something when the resources do not follow. As I said, I think that we need more assurance from yourself that this cannot continue to happen when we are getting bills that are around some of our most vulnerable people. I do not agree that it constantly happens. There will be occasions where the Government may well underestimate a cost and we have to accept the committee's scrutiny. That for me is one of the strengths of the committee system. Sue Webber is absolutely right to say that the Government should ensure that it is providing as accurate information as it possibly can with financial memorandum. To me, that demonstrates the efficacy of the committee system that we have. Through that evidence-taking that you will do with a range of stakeholders through your own detailed scrutiny of the financial memorandum, it is fair for the committee to then challenge Government back on the occasions where the estimates that committees believe to be underestimating the cost involved. That is the strength of the committee system, but I take the point that Sue Webber makes and other members have already made that there is detailed and accurate information that should be presented. I go back to my original point that doing so is not just in the interests of this Parliament but in the interests of the people that we serve but in the interests of the Government when it comes to the development of our own budgets. I am going to call Stuart McMillan on behalf of the Delegated Powers in the Law Report. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. It follows on from some of the previous questions when, obviously, every bill will have Delegated Powers, and that is a normal part of the legislative process. I think that certainly colleagues work with the framework bills, and I think that the definition of a framework bill is actually very much up for questioning in terms of what that is. But what considerations does the Scottish Government take into account when deciding to delegate a power or not in a bill and to satisfy itself of the appropriateness of its choices? In terms of Delegated Powers—it is recognised by this Parliament that Delegated Powers are an accepted part of the legislative landscape. There are, obviously, differences in the types of issues that they deal with and the different types of procedure—negative, affirmative—which can be applied, but I think that it is generally an accepted part of the legislative landscape from the Government's position. We will, obviously, look at the issue on a case-by-case basis. We will generally try to strike the balance between appropriateness, where it is appropriate to have certain powers in the face of a bill, and we know the challenges around that. I do not need to tell anybody on this table around the challenges of putting particular powers in the face of a bill. It locks you in. It has a certain level of rigidity and flexibility on the face of the bill. Therefore, it is suitable for under-delegated powers, which can perhaps be developed and updated more quickly. Crucially, subject to parliamentary scrutiny—this is where I think the members' committee plays a really important role, because it is for the Government that we take this responsibility very seriously to fully justify and explain the use of delegated powers that it takes in bills, hence the delegated powers memorandums, which the committee will examine, explore and challenge where appropriate and where necessary. Of course, where the Parliament or the committee has any concerns specifically around a particular delegated power, I can give an absolute assurance to Stuart McMillan that the Government will listen and where appropriate respond, hopefully, to a point where the committee is satisfied with the reasons of rationale for the use of a delegated power. Sticking with scrutiny, I am going to call Martin Whitfield on the standard procedures and public appointments committee. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. Yes, sticking with the overarching theme of the first few questions about scrutiny, my first question is in relation to the vehicles that we process bills through to legislation of stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3. It has become more obvious that, at stage 2, the Government is seeking to avoid, is too strong a word, seeking to move some of the decisions to stage 3, which removes the scrutiny that you yourself have commented that one of the strengths of the committee system is evidence-taking, and that we are starting to see new amendments that sometimes fundamentally shift parts of bills that are only being brought to the public eye at stage 3, which means that the committees have been unable to do that fundamental role that they take in this unicameral Parliament of seeking evidence inquiry and the views of those who the bills will affect those who have to implement bills, and we lose that evidence-taking. Is this something that, as First Minister, you're aware of, and is it something that, as First Minister, I'd hope you'd share with me that I have great concern about that, so new events at stage 3 going unscrutinised, causing challenges, and I would seek your views on how this can be avoided going forward? I'm more than happy to answer the question in the general, I hope, because you won't mind, because I'm not attempting to do this in any provocative manner, but is there a specific example of the issue that Martin Wirtfield raises that he wants me to particularly, or is it more in the general, because if there's a specific issue, then I'm more than happy to address that. There are individual cases that I could make reference to, but I don't think that's helpful, but there is an apparent, maybe subjective, view that there are more changes being proposed at stage 3 than in previous sessions, and sometimes, indeed, it would appear that it's those amendments that cause us challenges and problems both within and out with Scotland, so it's really just seeking your view on whether, as you've said, you agree with the strength of the committee system that actually the full case with regard to Government bills should be presented at stage 2, so that evidence inquiry can take place to test those. I'm grateful. I genuinely was just curious if there was a very specific example. There was more general concern that Martin Wirtfield had. In terms of the committee and the strength of the committee system, I genuinely believe in the strength, and I've been involved in many bills over a number of different ministerial guises in the past, and those bills have frankly been improved, have been bettered by going through the committee system, by compromising with colleagues and committee, and indeed those who are not in committee ahead of stage 3, and I'll come back to that point. A minute, of course, it is during stage 1 evidence consideration of the stage 1 report where the committee will obviously take the vast majority and vast bulk of its evidence, as opposed to, for example, stage 2 or indeed stage 3, but I take the very point, having been involved in a number of stage 2s before, that when an amendment is being debated, there's a full and frank discussion and quite a fair degree of depth. So where possible, I do think it's wise for the Government for our amendments to bring as many forward at stage 2 where we can. My arm without feel will be well aware that often what happens at stage 2 is that there's a good debate and discussion around an amendment, there is an agreement for the Government to work with a particular member, and then to see if they can get to some compromised position ahead of at time for stage 3, and I think that's a good way generally of working. I don't think—and I'm again happy to be challenged on that. I wouldn't suggest that there isn't a full and frank debate at stage 3. It tends to be that this Parliament, although we try to avoid that this Parliament will sit well into the evening when there's a number of amendments at stage 3. It's hardly ideal, of course, in terms of the family-friendly Parliament that we try to aspire to be, but I would say that I've never seen a stage 3 unnecessarily curtailed in terms of its debate by the Presiding Officer or the DPOs. I would say that stage 3 certainly allows for debate, frank and free exchange of views on any particular amendment, but I'm also not disagreeing with Martin but I feel that if amendments are certainly substantial amendments that significantly have an impact on any piece of legislation, if they can be brought forward at stage 2, that is better for everybody involved. We've touched on timetibling already, but I know that Audre Neill, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee, has a couple of questions in this area. Audre. Thanks very much, convener. My apologies for my late arrival this morning. First Minister, the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act, which comes into force on 1 April, creates offences relating to the stirring up of hatred, based on certain characteristics. We all understand the devastating impact of hate crime and everyone must play their part to challenge it. An issue that has recently been highlighted to the Criminal Justice Committee is that of the preparedness of police officers to effectively apply the law in the way that it is intended. I wonder if the First Minister can outline how the Scottish Government has engaged with Police Scotland and its bodies to ensure that officers are fully prepared to use the legislation and are confident in their application of the law, while recognising the importance of maintaining public confidence with particular regard to the important principle of freedom of speech. Before I go into the specifics, I hope that other members can take a fair degree of comfort from the fact that we have had stirring up offences in Scotland since 1986, most of my life in 1985. For most of my life, there has been a stirring up offence in relation to racial hatred. The threshold for that stirring up offence is lower than the thresholds that are created by the act. The act creates stirring up offences with a higher threshold for the characteristics that it applies to. Stir up offences are not new, but notwithstanding that point, there has been a fair degree of work and a fair amount of preparation by Police Scotland and other stakeholders in the summer of 2022. The purpose of the ministerial oversight group was to assist with providing justice partners at the time and the support that they needed to complete, first of all, the number of IT changes that were required. We know that there were number of IT changes that were required in terms of data collection and collation. Importantly, and this is to the point that Audrey Nicol makes, for the delivery of a robust package of training and guidance for police officers and training for police officers, is a matter for the chief constable, but we have been working closely with Police Scotland in that regard. The training of police officers does not just focus on the importance of the new offences that are created within the act. That is important, and that is of course of key consideration. The training that is provided ensures that police officers are fully cognisant of their human rights obligations. Again, in particular, training includes matters in relation to protection of freedom of expression, which enables officers to best respond to any potential complaints around hate crime. On the point that I have made several occasions in relation to this particular act, it is that the act does, of course, have explicit freedom of expression protections built within the bill, as well as the more indirect protections that are built in. For example, the fact that any legislation in this parliament must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The final thing that I would say is that the chief constable herself gave assurances just earlier this month to the SPA board that officers are trained and have sufficient capacity to undertake the implications of legislation and that the systems are in place in Police Scotland to be able to deal with this legislation too. I move on to my second question on the post office horizon issue. The First Minister will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote recently to the Criminal Justice Committee to say that regrettably it had not been possible to pursue UK-wide legislation to overturn the prosecutions of sub-postmasters and post-mistresses and that separate Scottish legislation would be needed. Can the First Minister give Parliament a broad idea of when we can expect that legislation and given assurance that there will be time in the expected timetable for the bill for robust scrutiny, which will allow some of those affected by the scandal to have their voices heard? I thank Audran Nickle for the question. I know the degree of interest that is not just in Parliament but, of course, within the public when it comes to those cases that have been affected by the horizon scandal. I would say that it remains our position, as has been articulated publicly and, indeed, directly with the UK Government, that UK-wide legislation would be better, given that it would apply fairly right across the nations of the UK in regards to post-submasters and post-submistresses that have been affected. However, it has become clear from engagement with the UK Government and, again, its publicly articulated position that it does not wish to apply UK-wide legislation—it will be England and Wales legislation—only that is a matter of regret, not just expressed by the Scottish Government but also by the Government in Northern Ireland also. However, that being said, we are in the position that we are in and, therefore, Scottish-specific legislation will be required unless there is a change forthcoming from the UK Government. We are working closely with the UK Government to understand what will be in the bill. I have some initial concerns around the UK bill. I would be happy to write to the convener with more details on those concerns. However, if we were to mirror the UK bill—although we can quite do that because of the differences in the Scottish law and the law in England and Wales, but if we were to almost mirror the broad scope—we would be in danger of overturning convictions of people who, if those cases were made public and, again, I will seek to see if we can do that, I think that the public would be pretty horrified at that. We have to make sure that we are striking the absolute right balance between ensuring that there is timely and expedited access to the UK compensation scheme. Everybody in this Parliament recognises that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have waited too long. However, at the same time, we want to make sure that people who have genuinely committed a crime—their conviction is sound—do not then have access to £600,000 of compensation. Trying to get that balance absolutely right is going to be hugely important. In terms of the timetabling point that Audrey Nicholl raises around the bill, because we have to be cognisant of what is in the UK bill, in order for people to be able to access compensation here in Scotland, it is going to be crucial that, in fact, it will be an inevitable reality that, although we can seek to introduce legislation here in Scotland ahead of the UK bill completing its process, we will have to wait to see the final detail of the UK bill because amendments that may be made in order for us to finalise our own legislation. The trouble with the timetabling of all of this is that the UK bill might well not conclude until the end of July. Of course, this Parliament would be in recess at that point, and therefore we may have to consider—it would be up for the Parliament to consider a recall. I mean, the Government would be happy to, of course, be involved in any recall, but it may be that we have to consider that bill in the course of the parliamentary recess. Okay, I'm conscious of the amount of questions we need to get through, so the questions are going to have to be a bit briefer. First Minister, I'd encourage slightly briefer answers as well. A brief supplementary on this, Stuart McMillan. Thank you. Just on the point of working closely together with the UK Government, now 24 LCMs have been passed on this parliamentary session, between also from both Governments. That highlights that joint working has been there. Was that a consideration or not a consideration of the UK Government when it came to this particular bill? Because, as you said, today but also in the chamber, the preference would have been to have a utilised LCM process to expedite this new legislation. Yeah, I mean, obviously I can't answer on behalf of the UK Government what would have been their consideration or not. I think part of the consideration, undoubtedly, would have been the difference in legal systems between England and Wales and Scotland and, of course, in Northern Ireland, but we did say to the UK Government that we could, of course, modify UK legislation to take account of Scottish-specific offences that might be different to English-specific offences, for example, but it really would be for the UK Government to give an answer to why they chose not to have a UK-wide approach, which is not what we wanted or neither what the Northern Irish wanted. I'm sticking on initially, certainly, on the time table, and we'll call Edward Mountain on Baffinets, EU Energy and Transport Committee. Thanks very much and good afternoon, First Minister. Given the climate change committees has reported that the Scottish Government's interim 2030, sorry, 2030 emission targets is now beyond what is credible, will you be bringing for your climate change plan? Surely that's really urgent, and when will you be making changes to the legal targets? We'll bring forward a response to the climate change committee's pretty sobering report within weeks. I hope to do it shortly after the Easter recess, because, of course, given the nature of that report from the climate change committee, we have to demonstrate accelerated action in terms of what we will and won't do. If I take the 2030 target, as has been referenced by Edward Mountain, it's fair to say when this Parliament first considered that target, that the climate change committee expressed its concern about it being perhaps overambitious and being potentially unachievable. It's now confirmed that that is the case. Yet, of course, everybody in the Parliament, every single political party, came together to put that target into legislation for Scotland to have that ambitious target, but it is not. As the climate change committee said, it's achievable, and, therefore, we will bring forward our response. I won't go into detail on what that response will be. Obviously, that is still being formulated, but it will look at an accelerated package of action, because that's what the climate change committee has demanded. Of course, Edward Mountain is right. We will have to consider what is in the legislation, given the fact that the climate change committee has not said that that 2030 target is no longer credible. On a slightly different subject, but on timetabling, First Minister, on 23 November, you signed off the appointment of Mike Russell to be the new chair of the Scottish Land Commission. On 29 November, the information was shared in absolute confidence with the National Zero Energy and Transport Committee, and we programmed evidence on that on 12 December. On 1 December, the information was leaked by SNP press release before the committee had even considered it. Do you think that that's respectful of the committee's procedure? Again, I will examine and explore this issue. We mean no disrespect whatsoever to the Parliament indeed. I think that Mike Russell will do an excellent job as chair, but we never seek to undermine the processes or the integrity of the Parliament. It was important when Mike Russell was confirmed as taking on this role. It was really important that he stepped back from his position as party president and, of course, to avoid any perceived conflict of interest that was the right thing to do. Of course, I reflect on this very specific instance. I can give an absolute chance to Edward Mountain. Anything that we do as a political party—I'm taking off my First Minister's hat and leader of the SNP hat here on—we don't seek to undermine the Parliament's processes in any way, shape or form. The final question on timetabling. In September of this year, the Clyde and Hebride East ferries contract ends. The National Zero Energy and Transport Committee agreed with the principle of a direct award, subject to the islanders approving. The islanders haven't approved. When are you putting it out tender? Will it be before September, or will the contract just run on indefinitely? Our aim is to continue to make sure that we meet that September deadline. I do think that the direct award—Edward Mountain has said that that was agreed by the committee's subject to islanders approval. We are working with a stakeholder. We know how important I have travelled on many islands, not just as my time was transport minister, but in other portfolios as well to our islands that are affected in the Clyde and Hebride East route. Therefore, we want to seek to ensure that they have confidence in that direct award. We are seeking to meet that September deadline, which was the question that Edward Mountain asked. I am going to come back to Kenny Gibson for a couple of questions in relation to finance and public administration. Yes, thank you very much, convener. First Minister, on 14 March, the Scottish Fiscal Commission published a very sobering report exploring the impact on the public finances of meeting Scotland's statutory net zero emission targets by 2045. They said, I quote, how unmitigated climate change could have catastrophic impacts on individuals, businesses and the public finances. I quote, if we fail to meet those targets. However, the cost of meeting those targets is estimated to be 18 per cent of our entire capital budget year on year when we have a declining capital allocation. The UK and Scotland cannot each meet their climate targets without co-operation. Therefore, I agree that the fiscal framework must be revisited specifically to address the damage caused by climate change and the need to adapt to it and mitigate it. I do not disagree with the premise of the question. We look at how significant the costs are going to be in order to achieve net zero. I do not think that there are many Governments in the world that are going to be able to do that solely through public finance. If I just look at what the cost of decarbonising heat in buildings is going to cost, there are not many Governments of any that are going to be able to fund that from the public purse alone. Therefore, leveraging private finance is going to be absolutely crucial to meeting our net zero targets and ambitions. That is why I am engaging personally very extensively with investors right across the world in order to try to leverage in some of that private finance where possible. That is also what the Scottish National Investment Bank is looking and seeking to do to somehow de-risk some of that private capital and investment as well. I agree with again the general premise of Kenneth Gibson's question that there is absolutely a need for the UK Government to understand the implications of net zero, the cost of net zero, when it comes to funding of the Scottish Government and in fairness for the Scottish Government through its engagement with local government to understand the impact on local government in relation to meeting the net zero targets. What does not help in any of this is that in the next five years that £1.3 billion to our capital budget is going to impact and affect our ability to move at pace when it comes to investment in our net zero infrastructure? The Scottish Fiscal Commission said frankly that the UK cannot meet its own targets without Scotland and Scotland cannot meet its targets without the UK. That is why I mentioned the fiscal framework being reviewed. The SFC also said this morning that Scotland's capital budgets will be cut by 20 per cent in real terms over the next five years. The Scottish Government is currently reprofiling and reprioritising its capital spend, but the Finance and Public Administration Committee will not see this until near the end of May. First Minister, surely this should be an on-going process such that priorities are always clear within any given spending envelope, regardless of what the capital allocation is, so you will always have a priority list within each heading. Whether it is increased or reduced, you will know what the priorities are. It seems odd to me that this whole thing is having to be reworked over a period of some months. I agree with that in the sense that when it comes to our infrastructure right across the board by the health infrastructure, transport, justice infrastructure or net zero infrastructure, of course there will be some projects that are further along the route in terms of outline business case, final business case, along the process in terms of getting and receiving Scottish Government investment, and we can be absolutely up front about that. There will also be projects that are huge in scale, so if we take the replacement monklins, that is probably the most obvious example. Obviously, we are committed to that replacement of monklins. That cost is vast in comparison to a capital project that may well cost a few million or even tens of millions. Therefore, getting absolute certainty, particularly from the UK Government around the capital infrastructure, a capital budget then determines what projects we can take forward at what scale and what has to be reprofiled out to the right. What might have to take longer, they may initially be envisaged. The Deputy First Minister has agreed to come to Parliament, as the member said at the end of May, in terms of our infrastructure investment plan. We are currently working through the detail of that. It is an extremely difficult capital budget that we have been given, and, as I say, from our Scottish Government perspective, we will seek to do what we can within the budget that we have, but where it is also appropriate, we will seek to see where we can leverage in appropriately private finance when I think about certain projects in the future. I am going to ask Sue Weber, who has a related question. Thank you, First Minister. When we were conducting our pre-budget scrutiny in the Education, Children and Young Peoples Committee, we did struggle to get responses to specific questions on specific budget lines. For example, despite our committee asking the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills in person and in correspondence and, indeed, the Public Audit Committee asking the director general of education and justice, we are still not clear how the £56 million in savings across demand-led programmes at the Scottish founding council, what that means, and that the Deputy Minister set out in November 2023. We still need to know how that has been broken down between college and university sectors, and we are still trying to get to the bottom of that, which is clearly important in terms of our further and higher education. Given the importance of the scrutiny process overall and of the decisions being made and the impact that they will have, do you think that committees should be provided with clear, transparent and detailed information from the Scottish Government? The absolute should be never to do that. It is precisely because of that point that sometimes it takes a bit of time to work through, for example, with the Scottish founding council. I can say to the member very clearly that those discussions of the Scottish founding council are very much on-going and have been for a number of weeks and indeed months, because we want to ensure that, where we have to, unfortunately, bring forward efficiencies because of the nature of our allocation from the UK Government, we have to do that in a way that minimises the impact on learners, for example. Those discussions are on-going and we would be hopeful of getting you the detail within a matter of weeks. I look forward to that. Thank you. We are now going to move on to the theme of health, and I call first Claire Hoggy on behalf of the Health and Social Care and Sport Committee. Claire. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. Before I start, I will refer members to my register of interests in that I hold a bank nurse contract with Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS. During the recent stage 1 process, the national care service, the committee received both oral and written evidence of workforce challenges in the social care sector in particular. Recruitment and retention caused great concern of what is a highly skilled workforce, and it is a particular challenge there. Given how crucial the social care workforce is in delivering a national care service and indeed delivering care every day to our communities, could the First Minister advise what steps the Scottish Government is taking to address these issues? There is no doubt in my mind that Claire Hoggy is absolutely right that when I speak to social care providers, whether it is in-house local authority provision or indeed private provision, the number one issue is workforce. It comes down to not just recruitment but retention of workforce. That is why the Scottish Government in our budget, of course, confirmed an increase in social care pay to £12 an hour. Now I know that there are some within the social care sector, understandably, who want the Government to go further, but we operate within the limitations of our budget. That is a significant increase, not only that. Our manifesto, of course, as the member will be more than aware, pledged to commit 25 per cent of our health budget to increase our social care spending by 25 per cent over the Parliament. We have managed to do that already two years ahead of target. I would say to Claire Hoggy that we are also working with the sector on that retention piece. What more can we do around fair work, around terms of conditions, not waiting for the national care service to come in to fruition? What can we do in advance of that through the fair work and social care group that has been established now for a while? The other final point that I would make about recruitment in particular is why we have raised concerns. Indeed, the sector has raised concerns around migration policy and recent changes by the UK Government around migration. I think that most people looking at that objectively believe them to be an act of incredible self-harm to the social care sector in particular, and undoubtedly there is a need for a rethink by the UK Government on that particular policy. You have almost preempted my entire set of questions, First Minister, which was about the social care workforce, because we know that many of them come from outside of Scotland, many EU nationals as well as workers from other countries come here and are aware of the impact that Brexit has had on that sector, as well as the immigration policies that you referred to. I know that there is a wholly reserved matter, but has the Scottish Government given some thought about how they could respond to that and how they are attempting to tackle some of those challenges of attracting some of that workforce to Scotland? We have asked for the UK Government to consider the impact of the changes. Can there be further changes that are made in relation to migration policy? Is the deeply unfair policy announced at the time that there was an almost unified response from the social care sector, not just in Scotland but right across the UK, about the impact that this would have? I do not need to tell any member here that social care is absolutely vital, in its own right, but also vital to the recovery of our NHS more generally. We have a number of people, far too many, over 1800 who are in our hospitals who have no clinical reason to be in hospital and that we want to get them either to their homes or as close to home as possible. That then affects and impacts the flow through our hospitals, so the recovery of health services is dependent on social care. That is why it is such a valued profession. That is why we have given further money to increase pay, but I would hope that there is a rethink from the UK Government as this is not genuinely not a party political issue. The sector has been unified right across the UK in saying how damaging those migration reforms will be. I will now invite Karen Adam on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee to stick with the health team. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. First Minister, at the end of October 2023, the Scottish Government announced that it would be publishing Scotland's HIV transmission elimination delivery plan in the coming months. We have held two formal sessions on this, one of which was yesterday with the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health, where she confirmed that the delivery plan had been published that morning. What are your hopes for the plan? How will it be promoted and how success will be measured, but also recognising the on-going work to reduce stigma? Can I recognise Karen Adam's own interests in that? As you say, we are absolutely committed to HIV transmission elimination. We have seen masses of advancements in technology and medical treatment over the years, so we have had huge advances in the prevention and treatment of HIV. We have a genuine opportunity to eliminate new cases of the virus in Scotland by 2030. The HIV transmission elimination proposal that was published in December 2022 emphasised the need to ensure that people living with HIV receive timely and appropriate diagnosis, appropriate treatment and, crucially, appropriate care, as well as a lovely plan. Of course, it has outlined the actions that will take to achieve that goal. The point about stigma is hugely important. The Government is actively seeking to do what we can to reduce stigma, not just for the important reasons of broader societal understanding, but also to ensure that people come forward as early as possible should they require diagnosis or, indeed, treatment or care. I do not doubt that there is more that can be done in that space. My second question, First Minister, is touching on what you have said about the advances in medicine. It means that a person living with HIV—which can be a detectable viral load—cannot pass the virus on to others. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to update the rules relating to culpable and reckless conduct in situations of intentional or reckless transmission of or exposure to sexually transmitted infections to reflect those advances? We do not have any particular plans at the moment to review that particular offence, the reckless conduct or intentional or reckless transmission of exposure to sexually transmitted infections. However, given that Karen Adams has asked the question, I am more than happy to give that issue an exploration or, indeed, further examination. It is, of course, ultimately a matter for the Crown to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a particular case and cops that the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service have published a prosecution policy on sexual transmission of infection, which sets out the reasons why they would or would not seek to prosecute an alleged offence, but on the issue of the advancement of technology, the advancement of treatment, I should say, and the question that Karen Adams has asked, I am happy to give that consideration and come back to the member. I will come back through the convener directly. Before we go to the comfort break, I will invite Richard Leonard at least to initiate in the area of health and in the subsequent questions on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. Thank you very much indeed. Good afternoon, First Minister. The Auditor General told the Public Audit Committee just last week, and I'll quote him, there are a range of strategies, plans and policies in place for the future delivery of healthcare, but no overall vision. How do you respond to that? Before I respond to that, just on the point of the comfort break, it's entirely a matter for you, convener, but I know part of the reason for the comfort break was to allow me to go rinse my mouth during Ramadan, given that we have a session ahead of us. I'm more than happy to continue if it's up to the committee, but if you won't have a comfort break for other members, then of course that's well understood. I disagreed with the point that the Auditor General made in relation to overall vision. I take on board the points that are absolutely made around strategy and the need for implementation of strategies. However, we have a vision in relation to healthcare and social care, and that ultimately is to ensure that we treat as many people at home or as close to home as possible. When it comes to our acute sites, our secondary care is to ensure that we have sustainable health services going forward. That means, of course, having the appropriate levels of staffing, but also ensuring that we use technology and technological advances as much as possible in order to help with the demand on the service. Ultimately, we take a preventative approach, and that has been a vision of this Government's for almost since its inception in 2007. I look, I would disagree with the Auditor General and respectfully disagree on that point while taking on board the other concerns that were raised by Audit Scotland. Do you accept the Auditor General's findings that the Government's national strategy for economic transformation lacks not only the economic leadership group we were promised two years ago, but lacks leadership full stop? The points of leadership group are not unreasonable in terms of the points that have been made. In terms of the national strategy and economic transformation, I am really proud of the strategy and I am really proud of the experts and those who have helped to drive forward that work. I am very also proud of what we have managed to achieve in terms of the economy here in Scotland, not without its challenges, not without really strong headwinds. Brexit being, of course, one of the most obvious, despite that. Just last month, we saw figures that showed private sector employment growth in Scotland better than any other nation or region in the UK. So, challenges undoubtedly, but I am proud of what we have managed to achieve in the face of very strong headwinds in terms of Scotland's economy. The committee has also taken evidence on the college sector and planning for skills. You have announced that Skills Development Scotland will be replaced, that the Scottish Government will take over control of training and skills. I was out during apprenticeship week, as I am sure you were. When I met with college lecturers, SDS staff, private training providers and employers and trade unions, none of them know what is going on. They also think that there is a lack of leadership there as well. We have already acknowledged that we engage with our college lecturers, with our trade unions, with our learners in relation to the changes that we seek to make. I hope that Parliament would recognise that there has been now a number of reviews into the skills sector. I commend those reviews and the weather review in particular. It is appropriate now that the Government then works with partners, including the ones that Richard Leonard has recognised, in order to now take forward and implement those changes. That, in its nature, can take some time between a report being published and then deciding on the way forward. I would absolutely hope that it would be my expectation. It is my belief that ministers and cabinet secretaries take forward those changes, co-designing, with those that are involved in providing education and helping with skills, such as colleges, college lecturers, staff and learners, as well. If there are specific instances of people who do not feel engaged, Richard Leonard has come across and I am more than happy to hear from him. My expectation is always—it is my belief—that we engage in co-design before making any substantial changes in the nature of which we are looking at in the skills sector. Having promised a comfort break, I am reluctant to perform a humiliating U-turn, so we will have a very short comfort break. We will get back on the way at three minutes past one precisely. I am going to start on the theme of housing and invite Annie Ambridge on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee to kick off questions. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. The local government housing and planning committee is holding a series of sessions on the Scottish Government's Housing to 2040 strategy. The expressed ambition of housing to 2040 is for everyone to have a safe, good quality and affordable home that meets their needs in the place that they want to be. In the sessions that we have held today, significant concerns have been expressed to us about the deliverability of housing to 2040's ambitions, and in particular in the context of the cuts to the affordable housing supply budget. Are the ambitions of housing to 2040 still realistic? If so, how does the Scottish Government intend to deliver on them? They are realistic and they are still very much our aims. I do not doubt for a minute the significant concern that has been raised in relation to the 24-25 budget in regards to housing. I understand that we have been up front about the reasons for that. We have had over 60 per cent cut to our financial transactions. We know how important financial transactions are in relation to this particular matter. Of course, as has already been referenced, a £1.3 billion cut to our capital budget over the next five years, I cannot look people in the eye and say that a £1.3 billion cut is not going to have an impact, but we are going to have to find ways to make savings. That is why one of the streams of workstreams that Paul McClellan and the housing minister are engaged in is in a housing investment group or task force that is looking to seek to try to leverage again some private investment through that housing investment task force. We do not doubt the challenges that absolutely exist. That is, of course, for budget 24-25. If I was to look over the longer term, of course, I think that that is important in any issue, but particularly in relation to house building. We have a strong track record of building affordable homes. We have a good track record in comparison not just to previous administrations but to current administrations across the UK in terms of the houses that we are building. I am not taking away from the challenges that exist in 24-25 and not taking away from the concerns that have been raised by NGOs, the third sector and others, but we are absolutely committed to those aims in housing 2040. Thanks for that response. You will be aware that the quarterly housing statistics were published this week. The number of new home completions fell by 11 per cent and starts fell by 24 per cent in 2023 compared to 2022. I recognise that that is a quarterly snapshot, but it does help us to keep track of where we are going. I would be interested to understand how the Scottish Government intends to reverse the decline. Through any objective measure, people would recognise that there has been over the last year some pretty significant challenges, inflationary pressures in particular. Again, without straying too much into the politics of that, we know that there are a number of reasons for those inflationary pressures, but one of them is that disastrous mini-budget and the impact of that from the UK Government. We are continuing to face those inflationary pressures. We were facing those inflationary pressures, but inflation is now beginning to come down, which is welcome. We have the wider impacts of Brexit and wider market conditions as well, but I fully accept the concern that has been raised by third sector partners in relation to housing about the challenge of the affordable housing supply programme. That is why the Deputy First Minister made it abundantly clear that, if there is an increase in capital, the priority will undoubtedly be the affordable housing supply programme. We did not see additional capital through the spring statement. We asked the UK Government to reconsider that point, but I go back to the point that I have made in the longer term on housing. We have a good and a strong track record. I do not want us to lose that or fall behind. That is why I will always seek to see how we can leverage in, for example, private investment into housing and house building. That is good to hear about working out that investment piece. One of the key concerns that has been highlighted to the committee in the housing to 2040 sessions was the ever-growing pressure on the homelessness services and temporary accommodation. I would be interested to understand how the housing bill introduced yesterday could potentially assist in responding to those pressures. There is a lot in the housing bill that I am very proud of and that will help in specific to addressing the issues around homelessness and certainly making sure that that problem that will be in that challenge that we face in Scotland is in no way exacerbated, so rent controls and having a more stable and permanent rent control scheme available to apply will assist. I think that it is important that we recognise that a number of countries across Europe have some form of rent control in one way or another and it does not necessarily lead to a lack of investment in the private rented sector. There are countries and examples that we can point to where there have been rent controls in place and there has been a continual flow of investment into the private rented sector. We are leaning on some of the expertise of those who are in the financial services in Scotland to make sure that we are explaining some of the policies that are within the housing bill in order to ensure that we continue that flow of investment, which is going to be required for our private rental sector. I should say also that, in terms of homelessness, there is nobody within the Scottish Government, of course, myself included, as the First Minister, who does not acknowledge and understand the severity of the challenge around homelessness. That is why, in the face of that difficult budget settlement—I have talked about capital—we are also looking at a £500 million real-terms cut over two years of our budget. What we have done is protect the homelessness budget for the next financial year, despite what I think is the most challenging budget since the devolution. I will broaden it out to the economy more generally. I will call Claire Baker on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. Part of the economy and fair work economy's responsibility is tourism. This morning, Visit Scotland announced that it will close the remaining 25 eye centres. That was after a 39 close-back in 2017-19. I would be interested to know whether the Government knows that announcement was coming this morning and what discussions they have had with Visit Scotland about the closures. If there is any evaluation being taken of the impact, looking at where the centres are, five of them are in the islands and the majority of them are still in rural locations. I think that there will be some concerns about the impact on the rural economy. Did the Government have this discussion prior to the announcement and what do you evaluate the impact to be? We have regular discussions with Visit Scotland. I fully accept that there will be some level of concern around the announcement. There is also a recognition that the way in which we seek information when we travel to tourist destinations has changed. Most of us here will use that, or we will go online. That is not to say that visitor information centres do not have a place among some people, and they will find a use and an interest of them. However, the way in which people seek information and find information on tourist destinations has rapidly and vastly changed. My expectation of Visit Scotland—and it knows that—would be to engage with the communities based on tourist destinations to ensure that they fully reassure them about what is in place in order for people to seek information about those destinations even when information centres are closed. Visit Scotland, are you correcting the analysis of why they are looking to close and to put more investment into online services? Are they sufficiently funded to provide the online offer that they have at the moment? If they are closing the centres, and their talk could do with a bit of improvement and a bit of investment going in there, are you confident that the resources that will be released from that would deliver that? Yes. I am confident that Visit Scotland has what is required in terms of the appropriate levels of funding to enhance the digital offer. I would say that the digital offer is very good at the moment. I think that probably most of us around the table have used Visit Scotland's website at some point or another. I think that it is a very good digital offering indeed, but it can be enhanced. Of course, there could be savings that could be made undoubtedly through the closure of the centres, as has been announced. I will go back to Clare Baker's initial point. It is the absolute right one that any decision of this nature should have appropriate levels of engagement and consultation with the local communities because there will be a number in remote and rural and island communities that may well be concerned about the announcement that has been made. However, I completely understand the rationale and reasons for it. I do think that Visit Scotland is appropriately funded to improve and enhance the digital offer, which I think is already quite a good one. Can I ask about the Fair Work Convention? It has published its first Fair Work in Scotland report that says that faster progress on fair work is urgently needed if Scotland is to become a fair work nation by 2025. Although the report recognises areas where Scotland is doing well, there are areas where we need to see improvements, including disabled workers. You might be aware that the committee did a bit of work on the disability employment gap, and we are going to return to it before summer. I suppose that it will be interesting what the First Minister's engagement has been with the Fair Work Convention report, and in particular what effort has been made to recognise how we need to make progress on closing the disability employment gap. We have made some progress, but the concern is that unless we fully understand how we have made progress and what else needs to be done, we will reach a plateau and will not be able to reach the target. We are still committed to that in terms of fair work nation. I should say that I met one of the chairs of the Fair Work Convention that was unavailable due to a family engagement. However, I will continue myself to engage as First Minister with the Fair Work Convention, as well as, of course, expecting the cabinet secretary to do so as well. The concerns around the disability employment gap are one that I recognise. Claire Baker and the committee have raised on a number of occasions. I recently, in fact, last week met disabled people's organisations and around the table that was hosted, and I am grateful to Glasgow Disability Alliance for hosting. Access into employment came up as a topic of conversation, as Claire Baker would expect. I will continue to invest in that as Claire Baker recognises herself that there have been improvements. It goes back to the question that was asked previously by Sue Weber and touched upon by Richard Leonard around the skills opportunities. We have got to ensure that everything that we are doing within the skills landscape, the education training and employment landscape is absolutely understanding accessibility issues. Although Claire Baker has very understandably asked me around the disability employment gap, there are others who are still struggling to get into the workforce through no fault of their own, but because of the institutional barriers that exist, as well as the disability employment gap, we are looking to seek to ensure that there is full access into the employment market for anybody who faces institutional barriers. Claire Baker, I know that you have got further questions, but I will go on to bring in other members and I will come back to you at the end if I can, if that is okay. I am going to ask Collette Stevenson on the issue of child poverty on behalf of the Social Justice and Social Security to question next. Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, First Minister. The Scottish child payment has been the flagship policy for tackling child poverty. Going forward, do you expect that this will be the central policy for meeting the 2030 targets? Can you talk about other actions that the Scottish Government will take to deduce child poverty, as well? We will always be at a central policy of Scottish child payment. It is rightly lauded and praised as a game-changing intervention by stakeholders and obviously is increasing next year. There will be organisations, charities and NGOs that will want us to go even further in relation to Scottish child payment. From a Scottish Government perspective, we just have to get the balance absolutely right between a level of intervention that absolutely will help us to reduce child poverty and making sure that we are creating the appropriate incentives in relation to work. We think that we have that balance right, but let us keep that always under review where we can. The Scottish child payment alone is modelled to lift 60,000 children out of relative poverty in 24-25. The other interventions that are taken as a total will seek estimates that suggest that we will lift 100,000 children out of relative poverty, which is really significant given the headwinds that we are facing in terms of a cost-of-living crisis. The last point that I would make on that is that there are interventions that we can and should continue to make. A lot of those in the social security space that Collette Stevenson and her committee look at with regularity, but there are also some levers that are not in our hands. For example, just lifting the two-child limit alone, we know that experts have suggested that we would lift 250,000 children out of poverty across the UK. Of course, introducing an essential guarantee and changes to universal credit could make a significant, significant difference. We will do what we can within our powers, within our budget, but I would urge the UK Government to make the appropriate changes that could, quite literally, overnight help us to reduce poverty in Scotland and across the UK. The next area that I was going to ask about was the minimum income guarantee. Now, while I understand that the final report is not drew out until the end of this year, would you be able to comment on the progress thus far and any interim findings on that? Collette Stevenson is right that the expert group is due to publish the recommendations this calendar year. We know first of all that support for minimum income guarantee is building that was shown by the recent Poverty Alliance annual conference that delegates discuss the need for transformational change and priorities to tow towards a minimum income guarantee. The expert group are considering the potential impacts, the delivery for both households and also the wider economy and indeed society, and the recommendations will consider costs, legislative powers, delivery mechanisms. Ultimately, we want to ensure that when we take forward a policy such as this, that it is deliverable. That is why the work of the expert group for me is so, so important, that independent group of stakeholders to consider feasible steps towards delivering a minimum income guarantee. There is probably a little more that I can say than that ahead of the publication of the recommendations later this year. Following the publication of the committee report on how devolution is changing post-EU, the committee held an event with Strathclyde University Law School to consider the report findings and recommendations. Participants were drawn from a wide range of professional backgrounds, including politicians, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament officials, public private sector lawyers and academic public lawyers, political scientists and in addition PhD students from across the United Kingdom. The note that was prepared by one of our committee advisers talks of the chilling effect of Euchema on devolved policy making, the shadow of parliamentary sovereignty that gives the UK Government an upper hand at any dispute with devolved Governments, and in the general level within the room there was a broad agreement that the pre-EU withdrawal conditions of consensus and co-operation have broken down and much interest in the room about whether and how that can be restored. First Minister, can consensus and co-operation post-EU be restored? I am mindful that the convener will tell me to be brief, so I will do my best. I know in response to the committee's report, Ms Robinson and Anne Robinson indicated the Scottish Government's view that there is a need to, I think, the committee's overall recommendation and conclusion and the need for new inter-governmental relation. There are agreements to reflect the complex and evolving post-Brexit landscape, I think that it would be fair to say. My concern really is that the approach of the current Administration of the UK is one that seeks to undermine devolution. The Internal Market Act for me is an absolute example of that. That is just not my view. Of course, it is a view that is shared by the Welsh Government, although I have engaged only briefly with the Northern Irish Government, I begin to hear their views around devolution and the current structures in place. Ultimately, it is a far cry from how previous Prime Ministers have approached this issue. For example, I take David Cameron's Government, Lord Cameron, now. There were fundamental disagreements on a whole range of policy issues, constitution included. We had two Governments that were able to get to a position where the democratic will of the people of Scotland and the devolution settlement of this Parliament was respected. Sitting around the table, let's take the most contentious issue of the constitution, and there was an agreement there, an Edinburgh agreement, which allowed a referendum to then take place, even though we had diametrically opposing views of that issue. We are a far, far cry away from that, with devolution in my mind and the mind of many experts seems to be undermined, not just with the Internal Market Act, but the uses of, for example, section 35 powers. There is a significant concern around overreach, and that is why I agree with the committee's overall conclusion that new intergovernmental relations agreements are needed to reflect that very complex and involving post-Brexit landscape. There has been concern raised, as you say rightly, and I am involved in a couple of inter-parliamentary forums. I mean that I have stormed back up and running. Those concerns have also been raised by House of Lords committees as well. One of the suggestions is that some of the conventions that we put into statute, like the sole convention, post the UK election, there might be an opportunity to examine how we might move forward with a review of how we operate post EU. I hope that there is an improved relationship if there is an incoming UK Labour Government. If there was—unlikely, as it may seem—a continuation of the current UK Government post the general election, I would hope that it would not take a general election for there to be a change in approach. I hope that the current UK Government party within Government at UK level could look at the damage that is being done to devolution more broadly and the undermining of our institutions more broadly by their actions and just take a different approach now. It would be far better than having to wait for an election and then a potential incoming new government. For me, the sole convention is just the absolute example, as well as the internal market act, but the sole convention is a real example of the fundamental undermining of our devolution structures. It is not just my previous Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, regularly raised the concern of the fact that the sole convention was breached time and time and time again, not just issues related to Brexit, but often when it came to Brexit-related legislation. I will look at good ideas wherever they come from, as in Gordon Brown's piece of work, which I think has some merit. I do not think that it goes nearly far as it probably should. I have a great deal of respect for Gordon Brown and the work that he has done, but I do not think that it goes far enough. We have already seen some examples of where the UK Labour Party are already rolling back on some of those recommendations from the Brown report. However, whichever party is in power bearded in the UK Government, or indeed in the Scottish Government, it is really important that there are appropriate mechanisms in place for good inter-governmental relations. I am looking to give you an answer on another subject. First Minister, you committed to increase the Scottish Government's investment in excellent culture by £100 million by 2028-29. The culture sector has experienced what has been termed the perfect storm with Covid and Brexit and also with the cost of living crisis. Are you able to give any detail or what your priorities will be for that spend going forward for our culture sector? There has been an increase in the next year's budget in terms of the culture sector. That is the first down payment on that £100 million that we have promised by financial year 28-29 and in 2025-26 will aim to provide an additional £25 million to the culture sector. We are trying to give some forward look in terms of additionality coming forward. It allows the culture sector to plan and to thrive. I do not need to tell Clare Adamson at all about the value of the culture sector, not just here at home but abroad as well. That increase is coming despite a very challenging budget situation, as I have already referenced. Through that increase in investment, we want to drive up participation, in particular in creative pursuits. We want to support the production of new works as well. Crucially, as I have already referenced, we want to ensure that Scotland's cultural output has not just platforms at home but also crucially abroad as well. I have a couple of brief supplementaries at the end. I am going to come first to Kenny Gibson and then to Clare Baker. The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body and the Finance Committee have expressed concerns about the growth in the cost and the number of public office holders. Those commissioners and the financiers that are about to begin have had significant increases higher than, for example, any portfolio across the Scottish budget. One of the concerns that we have in terms of those commissioners is not only the cost but also the inability for them to be actively scrutinised. I am just wondering what the Scottish Government's view is in terms of those commissioners. For example, do you feel that there should be more, there should be fewer? Should the Parliament decide and let it grow organically? Should there be sunset clauses, for example, so that once the initial mission is accomplished, it could be abolished? We are about to undertake an inquiry on commissioners. It would be quite interesting to hear what the Scottish Government's view of this is at an early stage. We want one kind of philosophy for organisations who do not... First Minister, you get the drift, First Minister. We should have a commissioner who looks into these issues. No, I don't think that's the case. I think that we're all in all seriousness. The point that Kenneth Gibson makes is absolutely right. I'll probably broaden out to the points that the Deputy First Minister has made to the Parliament and the public sector reform. I think that there's an understanding around the complexity of the landscape, the size of the landscape and having to perhaps simplify it and where necessary make further efficiencies within the public sector landscape. Of course, doing that with our trade union colleagues and the workforce. I would say that it's not for me, as the First Minister, to necessarily dictate to Parliament in terms of members' bills that come forward and other bills that create commissioners. There's a number of bills that are in the ether that have been suggested for introduction, and some of those bills have a commissioner attached to them. Of course, we would then debate the merits on a case-by-case basis. I think that some of the proposals that Kenneth Gibson has mentioned around potential sunset clauses are well worthy of consideration and merit. However, if I can give a reassurance to Kenneth Gibson that this is all part of the work that the Deputy First Minister is looking at in relation to public sector reform. Okay, thanks. Given that she raised the issue of closure of eye centres in islands, I'm going to reward Claire Baker with the final question and demonstrate to Kenny Gibson how you do it briefly. Richard Leonard has already raised the Audit Scotland report into the national strategy for economic transformation. While Audit Scotland did talk about the economic leadership group, they did raise issues around transparency and accountability. We are expecting the refresh in the summer, so will the refresh in the summer address issues that came from Audit Scotland report? Yes, we'll seek absolutely to do that. I will myself personally, on the back of Claire Baker's question, look at the progress that we're making in relation to that update, but my expectation is that we will address that issue, but not only within the update. More generally, if I can give an absolute assurance to not just Richard Leonard and Claire Baker, but all of the committee conveners on this table, when we take Audit Scotland's reports extremely seriously, we seek to respond to them, to implement where we can recommendations. In any recommendations we don't implement, we're really up front about the reasons why we will not take forward a certain recommendation, but we'll personally look at that update and ensure that it addresses the issues around transparency and some of the other issues that were raised by Audit Scotland. Thanks very much. That concludes the session with the First Minister. I hope that we can repeat the exercise in about six months' time, but thank you again, First Minister, for your attendance. Thank you, colleagues, for your attendance and I close this meeting