 We now have topical questions. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to ensure the concerns of 56 doctors at the Beatson Cancer Centre regarding patient safety are fully addressed. Let me first be absolutely clear that patient safety is of paramount concern, whilst it is a very complex issue about a very highly specialised unit and its support services, there is no question that the views of clinicians, including those at the Beatson, are extremely important and need to be fully addressed. I have spoken to the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and have been assured that this will happen. The chief medical officer has had constructive discussions with the chair of the local consultants committee and the health board's medical director about the need for all parties to commit to resolving these concerns. It is vital that the health board addresses the issues raised so that the move can go ahead with the support of clinicians, and a meeting is planned for tomorrow to continue to take this forward. In the meantime, I have been assured by the health board that key support services such as 24-7 and aesthetic cover will be maintained until an agreed, sustainable solution is in place. I thank the minister for that reply and I particularly welcome the emphasis on patient safety. The fact that these 56 consultants warned that services for seriously ill patients requiring a high dependency unit were not going to be safe is surely worrying, and that they felt the need to go public to fulfil their obligations based on the general medical council guidance after mid-staffature is surely an indictment of the board's approach. Why did we reach this point where doctors who do not go public likely and the board, having had four years to consult on the effect on services at hospital, like the Beechden, of opening of the southern general hospital, did not appear to have occurred? Why were they not properly consulted beforehand? I say to Richard Simpson that there have, of course, been a number of discussions over a long period of time. The issue, of course, is that there was a failure to agree on some of the detailed changes. Richard Simpson is right. I absolutely would have preferred all of these issues to have been resolved in a different manner, but what is important is that they are now resolved going forward. Of course, the general medical council's role is in the regulation of doctors. It is healthcare improvement Scotland that is the organisation tasked to look into issues of patient safety. As I understand, they are now going to look into the issues of concerns raised and make an assessment. However, what is critical—firstly at tomorrow's meeting—is that there is an interim set of arrangements agreed beyond the moves that have already been made around anaesthetic cover. Those are to the satisfaction of the clinicians and the board moving forward in order to create the space to agree on some of the more difficult issues to make sure that there is a sustainable service going forward. However, I am in exactly the same place as Richard Simpson. Those issues have to be resolved. The clinicians have to be assured that patient safety is paramount above all else in this matter. In the response that we have seen in the public domain, and the cabinet secretary has referred to it, the Greater Glasgow board has said that it will provide residents, and therefore presumably junior anaesthetics, on-site overnight, and a consultant on call during the 24-hour period. I have personal reservations about that, but my views are irrelevant. Obviously, it is a matter for the consultants to agree on that and assure themselves that the service will be adequate and safe. Speaking of adequacy, is the minister comfortable with the reports in the press today of Mayhem at the Southern General Hospital accident and emergency unit, with eight-hour waits, trolleys lining corridors, sick patients having to sit on the floor, diversion to the Glasgow royal infirmary, ambulances waiting two hours to discharge into A&E? I wonder just where the modelling was for the transition, because even if those are teasing problems, they affect real individuals. I just wonder what modelling was done and whether the cabinet secretary will agree to have a very close look at this in case we actually have other hospitals opening in future where there is a transfer of services. Finally, the closure of western general accident and emergency is going to occur at the end of the month. If we have already got chaos with the current transfer, then can I suggest to her that the officials need to look very closely at postponing that transfer in order not to create more chaos? Richard Simpson is in danger of conflating two very serious issues, but none the less two different issues. Let's finish on the issue of the Beats. First of all, it is absolutely critical, as I said earlier, that clinicians are satisfied with matters going forward. That is why the proposal to continue 24-7 anaesthetic cover has been agreed with clinicians going forward, but there are other remaining issues that need to be resolved. The meeting tomorrow night is very important as part of that. Where I expect everyone to get to is to an agreeable set of arrangements that will provide an interim solution while some of the further discussions take place about the on-going permanent sustainable solution for the Beats. Richard Simpson then went on to talk about the new South Glasgow University hospital. Last week, of course, there were a major transfer from Victoria to the new hospital. That involved a transfer of patients, a transfer of staff and that is a very complicated, difficult transfer to me. Yes, there were issues emerging that made it very challenging around the availability of beds and staff and there were some pressure points at the end of last week. I can tell him, as of yesterday, that the hospital was performing very well and A&E was performing very well. I think that it was around a 91 per cent achievement of the four-hour target and patients flowing through the system. He mentioned the western. The western begins to move across this weekend and they are absolutely looking at the lessons learned from the Victoria and making sure that issues of pressure that emerged are addressed in the way that they move the western. I do not think that there would be anything to be gained from not sticking to the timetable of transfer so that we can get all of those services transferred across, the staff can get working in their new environment and that patients can be settled into their new environment as well. I would hope that Richard Simpson, despite some of the challenges that have come with the transfer, would recognise that what we have is a first-class world-class hospital that I hope he will take the opportunity to visit at some point and will hopefully be as impressed as I was. Of course, I am on a daily basis being kept in touch with the detail of what is happening at the front door of the hospital and to make sure that any issues that are emerging that we are alerted to, but more importantly they are addressed. A big move like this does bring with it some challenges but I hope that we will have Richard Simpson's support as we work through those challenges over the next few days and weeks. Clearly, the concerns of the Beats and Clinicians have to be taken very seriously and, as Richard Simpson said, it takes a lot for clinicians to go public as they have done. Were any of their concerns raised via the national confidential NHS alert line? Given that that line has now been in place for two years, what assessment has been made of its effectiveness? I understand the review of it taking place. I will get back to her about whether or not any issues have been raised. Of course, it would not be as specific as it is to say that a particular clinician from a particular location raised that particular issue. It is not quite as specific as that but I will get back to her on the general point around the alert line. In that issue, what has been definitely the case is that there has been an on-going dialogue with clinicians and the board. It is not that the board were not speaking to clinicians, it is just that there was a failure to agree on certain aspects of what the way forward was and the clinicians have a strongly held view around certain aspects of the arrangements going forward that they did not agree with the board on. Those issues must be resolved. They have to be resolved not just to the satisfaction of the clinicians but to the satisfaction of us all that patient safety is paramount and we will absolutely take no risk. I am confident that through those on-going negotiations the meeting tomorrow is an important part, the involvement of the chief medical officer, that we will get to a place where the clinicians are satisfied and that the board have a sustainable model to take forward, the very excellent world-class service that they have at the Beats and the one that we should all be proud of. Question 2, Mike McKenzie. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the subject of HS2. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. I discussed the weekend newspaper reports about the HS2-limited study with Sir David Higgins, the chair of HS2-limited, this morning. I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLaughlin on several occasions including three times subsequent to his statement to the Conservative Party conference in favour of three-hour journey times between Scotland and London. I have made clear to Mr McLaughlin that the Scottish Government's position, indeed the position of all the parties in this chamber is at high speed rail must come to Scotland. Despite those challenges at a ministerial level, my officers are in contact with their UK Government counterparts and the need with HS2-limited. Transport Scotland officials sat on the Serian Group for HS2-limited study to broad options for extending HS2 to Scotland. The series advice has been with the UK and Scottish ministers since December, but despite, as I say, several requests for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport, I have had no positive response. Indeed, he has not managed to meet me since he was appointed in September 2012. Mike McKenzie. I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if he agrees with me that including Scotland in HS2 would deliver significant economic benefits by improving connectivity and removing barriers. For everybody in Scotland, but particularly for businesses in the more remote parts of the country. Yes, I agree with that. As does Civic Scotland, in particular the business community that Mike McKenzie refers to, but also our councils, trade unions and many others, those significant economic benefits would accrue at both ends of high speed rail and at all points in between. There would also be far greater environmental benefits from modal shift if we can achieve the two and a half to three-hour journey times between Scotland and London that HSR can bring. That is in addition to the already required additional freight capacity which will help in terms of the environment and productivity. Mr McKenzie. Minister, again in view of his answer to my initial question does he agree that the UK Government has shown a lack of ambition and insufficient consideration for Scotland throughout the development of the plans for HS2? Cabinet Secretary? I do agree. I think that the UK Government has been unambitious and has been disrespectful in terms of a complete lack of dialogue and the leaking of its reports, reports which they asked us to respect the confidentiality of and in relation to high speed rail coming to Scotland. I would, from my part, encourage all parties and interest groups to join with me in demanding that the Secretary of State for Transport starts to discuss how we can bring HSR to Scotland as quickly as possible. It's also worth saying, of course, that if it was to be the case that a high speed rail went to the north of England but not to Scotland that is the worst of all worlds for Scotland. That would put us at a substantial disadvantage. I think that there is substantial unity on this issue across Scotland in terms of the political parties and civic Scotland and I think that the UK Government would be ill-advised to ignore that unity. Alex Johnson. The minister will be aware that one of the dimensions of the development of high speed rail in recent months has been the discussion taking place between cities in the north of England to see how they can steer that development. Can the minister tell me if the Scottish Government has had any contact with the organisation formed by these north of England cities or has he facilitated any contact between Scotland's major cities and these north of England cities? Cabinet Secretary. Yes, there has been such contact between the cities in the north of England. I have spoken at conferences, I think that the last one was in Manchester where the leaders of various cities of the north of England gathered together to talk about high speed rail and its implications. Also, I think that my predecessor, Alex Neil, also had particular discussions with some of the cities affected. Of course, some of the proposals for high speed rail are not actually high speed rail. The ones that are talking about traversing the north of England are a higher speed rail but not a high speed rail. We think, for the reasons that I have outlined already, that if we can get high speed rail to Scotland, to Edinburgh and Glasgow, then the points in between Manchester Leeds and Scotland could all benefit from high speed rail. That is what we urge everybody in the chamber, including those Conservative members, who may have some sway with the Conservative Government to get behind that and get the transport secretary to come and speak to people in Scotland so that we can progress this issue. Question 3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Police Scotland has been using facial recognition technology on images stored on the police national database. Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson. Police Scotland retains images to prevent and detect crime. Police Scotland has provided assurance that photographs are only taken when a suspect is detained, arrested and or charged. The service does not retain images indefinitely of people who were not subsequently charged or convicted of an offence. The images are retained on the criminal history system and uploaded to the police national database, which was created and is administered by the Home Office. The facial recognition technology has been available to Police Scotland on the police national database since 2014 and has been used on 440 occasions. The police national database is an extremely valuable resource that helps to prevent and detect crime to make communities safer across Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. Of course, this technology has the potential to help to detect crime, but, like other biometric technologies, its use must be properly regulated, yet this has been put into operation without any public or parliamentary scrutiny. The biometrics commissioner has warned about the dangers involved in creating this database as it is subject to none of the controls and protections that currently apply as regards to DNA or fingerprint databases. Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of the expert independent biometrics commissioner? It is also important that we take into account any concerns that are raised on these matters, but the member will also be aware that within Scotland we have the Criminal Justice Licensing Scotland Act, which provides provision around the retention of information on the criminal history system that Police Scotland operates and which subsequently feeds into the police national database. We are wrong to suggest that there is no provision around how records are held on individuals who are charged or convicted of offences. We are always prepared to look at areas where improvements can be made, but I am not aware of any particular concerns that have been identified in the way that Scotland is operating the system that is presently administered by the Home Office. It is important not to be complacent about that. We do not have a clear regulatory framework and proper safeguards. What is in place at the moment to prevent the police from using the technology to go on fishing trips to stop them embarking on mass surveillance? Could they identify individuals, for example, at football games from that? Secondly, the technology has not yet been rigorously tested. What safeguards, if any, are in place to prevent wrongful mistaken identification? As I outlined in my earlier response, the way in which Police Scotland operates the photographic recognition system is that photographs are only taken of an individual if they are detained, arrested and or charged. They do not retain images of people who have not been subsequently charged or convicted of a crime. If the person is not charged, if they are dealt with by a disposal that is not a prosecution or they are found not guilty, the criminal history system that Police Scotland operates is updated to recognise that, which then has the weeding out of those files, and that subsequently updates the police national database, which means that any information that is put on to that is removed from the system as it stands. There is a weeding mechanism in the system in order to remove those individuals who have not been subsequently charged or convicted of an offence. That ensures that those images are not then retained on the police national database. Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, do you know whether or not the Scottish Police Authority agreed to Police Scotland uploading custody photographs to the police national database? Were they aware, were their agreements sought, or were they not? Is it just like deployment of armed police, stop search, are the SPA doing their job here and if they are not, can you have a word with them and try to get them to take some control over what Police Scotland is getting up to? Cabinet Secretary. It is important that we keep a level of perspective around these matters and trying to wrap this up into armed police officers and stop and search. Again, it is blowing it all out of proportion to be perfectly frank. I believe that there are areas where the Scottish Police Authority can improve the way in which it is operating. The chief inspector of Constabulary has already looked at that. There is an action plan in place in order to improve those areas as well. It is important that we recognise that, although there will be issues that have to be addressed at various times and how policing is taken forward and how the Scottish Police Authority is operating, I think that to try and just roll this all in too. Everything is just bad. It doesn't help anyone and doesn't take any of these issues forward in a reasonable and considered way. That ends Topical Questions. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13246.