 The next item of business is topical questions. We start with question number one from Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason ministers will no longer hold a public session or Q&A as part of the annual review of NHS boards. Cabinet Secretary, Jeane Freeman. There is no change to the core purpose of annual reviews, which is to hold NHS boards to account. This year, all 14 territorial boards will receive a ministerial review, as well as the majority of national boards. Ministers continue to have separate meetings with front-line staff through the area clinical forum, area partnership forum, and to meet with patients and carers. The meeting with the relevant board chair and chief executive allows for a focused, free and frank discussion on local performance between the minister and those senior persons who are directly accountable from the board. I am clear that health boards should be accountable to the communities that they serve. All boards have been required to hold a public session to ensure that local people continue to have the opportunity to question their NHS board on matters of importance, and those will have a ministerial presence. I have also asked the Joint Scottish Government and COSLA integration review to consider how we can have jointly with COSLA where appropriate whole-system reviews in the years ahead. This is really quite a simple issue, so I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary has attempted again to spin her way out of this. The decision to stop members of the public putting questions to ministers as part of the annual review of NHS boards is a decision that the cabinet secretary has taken. It is a significant change in direction and stands in stark contrast to her predecessor, one of whom said, I want the public to be full partners in the delivery of NHS services. That is why it is vitally important that they get the opportunity to participate in annual reviews. The NHS board chair and I look forward to questions that members of the public have about their local health services and hearing their views. That quote was from a former health secretary, the current First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. If it was good enough for previous health secretaries, including Nicola Sturgeon, to participate fully in public sessions, can Jane Freeman explain to the public why she changed the guidelines and why it should not apply to her? Ms Lennon is absolutely right that it was our current First Minister when she was health secretary who introduced the public sessions and public Q&A sessions. Prior to her, of course, in the Labour and Lib Dem Administrations, that was not the case. Can I repeat that all boards have been required to hold a public session to ensure that local people continue to have the opportunity to question their NHS board on matters, to question their NHS board on matters of importance, to share their views and to have a ministerial presence? Presiding Officer, how is Lennon managed to manipulate that into accusing me of spin? Let me assure you that I am spinning nothing. I am simply answering the question in the straightforward manner as I did the first time around. Monica Lennon I quote extensively, for example, NHS 5 chair Trisha Marwick, who is quite clear that a new format has been instigated this year by the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary was previously a board member of the Scottish Police Authority and, because of the scrutiny in this Parliament, we found out that he is a world leader in secrecy. None of us would want to see the same bad practices in police governance creep into the NHS. Our health and social care services are facing huge challenges, and people need to have full confidence in the NHS, in their health boards and in this Government. The changes brought in by Jeane Freeman will undermine public scrutiny and represent a backwards step. Will the cabinet secretary just admit that her decision to avoid public questions is the height of arrogance and will she commit to an immediate U-turn? Jeane Freeman I am not sure what part of there will be a public session where members of the community can ask questions and there will be a ministerial presence comes to a situation of Ms Lennon's accusation that I am avoiding public scrutiny. I genuinely do not understand that. I am also deeply disappointed, perhaps if Ms Lennon could just hold off for a second and listen. I am deeply disappointed that, in the absence of constructive, positive or even radical ideas from the Labour benches about our health service, we have to resort to personality attacks. I will not reciprocate on that. We are not talking about the SPA, we are talking about our health service, there will be public sessions, there will be ministerial presence, there will be questions and ministers will be there to answer those questions, along with health boards who are the subject of annual reviews in order to hold health boards to account. I do not know what more to say on that. Ms Lennon, I am sure, will continue to want to misrepresent and manipulate those words, but they are on the record and I hope that they are clear to the rest of this chamber. Clare Adamson Officer, for the avoidance of doubt and since this was not raised in the chamber when members had an opportunity to do so last week, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the reviews are about board performance and that the requirement to hold public sessions at least once a year remains? Clare Adamson Ms Lennon is absolutely correct, the reviews are about board performance. What I have said, if you want to look at changes, I have said to boards that they have to hold a public session at least once a year. In other words, they may need to hold them more than once, that increases accountability. Ministers will be at those public sessions. I made the point earlier that board annual reviews have changed over the years in order to reflect changing circumstances. I have not removed the public opportunity to question the board or to have a minister there to be part of that questioning. That is why the boards need to hold that public session. They will have a ministerial presence and I just add for the record that the follow-up letter to annual reviews, which sets out very clearly my expectation of the board's performance in the year to follow, will of course, as before, be public. Miles Briggs That might be more an example of a Twitter spat being brought into the chamber than anything, but I think that it is only right and right and proper that in a parliamentary democracy that ministers and HS boards undergo public scrutiny and from increasing parking problems to waiting times getting worse, the public has a right to be able to raise those concerns. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary if she will look at how the Scottish Government can improve accountability, not restrict it. I am grateful to Mr Briggs for that question. I agree with him. It is only right that there is public scrutiny and there is public scrutiny in a number of additional ways. There are two ways I think that we are currently looking at how we can improve on this. The first of those is, as I said earlier in my first answer, that I have asked the joint Scottish Government, COSLA-led review on integration, how we can have a review of the whole system. We talked before in this chamber with your colleague Ms Smith and others about a whole system approach to health and social care. At the moment, it is the performance of health boards that are subject to annual review, but we need to widen that. I need to be able to do that in partnership with COSLA, where that is appropriate. The second, again, is an area that we have touched on here. That is the whole question of how our health boards undertake public engagement and genuine community engagement throughout a 12-month period, in a sense regardless of whether or not they have major changes that they want to take to public consultation. That work is under way with them and inside Government, and I hope that we will be able to bring forward some proposals, certainly to make the health and sport committee aware of those, and we might discuss them further, but also into this chamber so that members are aware about the changes that we want to make to encourage our health boards to have a more consistent but genuine public engagement approach with the communities that they serve. Question 2, Rachael Hamilton. What action is the Government taking to ensure that rail transport performs well during the festive period? The member will be aware that ScotRail's ability to provide a reliable service for several parts of the Scottish rail network has been unacceptable for passengers and the Scottish Government over the past few weeks. Instead of celebrating the provision of 65,000 additional weekday seats and over 100 additional services per day following the recent introduction of the new timetable, I am extremely disappointed to, again, be speaking about unacceptable levels of cancellations. I have made my position clear to Alex Hines, the managing director of ScotRail Alliance and also to Dominic Booth, the managing director of Ibellio UK, that ScotRail must take all action necessary to ensure that services return to schedule as soon as possible. At passengers begin to see the benefits of the new timetable. ScotRail has sought to reassure me of a plan of action to address the number of cancellations. Firstly, ScotRail has already recruited 85 drivers and 54 conductors to deliver those new services. Secondly, an intensive training programme to recover the delays caused by the delivery of trains and the RMT industrial action is under way. That will continue throughout the Christmas holiday period, allowing a steady service improvement as each staff member completes their training on the new trains and routes. Thirdly, an additional expert operational planning resource has been added to ScotRail's team to optimise the use of available resource and thus minimise cancellations. I have made it clear to ScotRail that restorative action rests entirely with them, and I expect them to take whatever action is required to ensure that services return to normal as quickly as possible. I also ensure that services run smoothly over the Christmas and New Year period, delivering the benefits of more seats and services on a consistently reliable basis. Rachael Hamilton I thank Michael Matheson for that full reply and for acknowledging that there have been problems recently. However, I would like to point out some of the issues that many people in the chamber have having letters written from the constituents. Last Friday, travel chaos ensued across the ScotRail network, and that continued until Monday, with over 70 trains cancelled. Many of our constituents experienced terrible service, including on the Waverly line to Tweedbank last week. Trains were delayed, cancelled and the situation escalated so much so that the trains did not stop at Stow. Hard-working ScotRail staff bore the brunt of the passengers' anger. Presiding Officer, that is absolutely unacceptable. Cabinet Secretary, this was the first proper weekend of the Christmas rush and ScotRail failed to step up to the mark. Has ScotRail already fallen at the first hurdle? Cabinet Secretary, I fully recognise the experience for some of the travelling public over the last week or so that has not been to the acceptable level. The Government has been very clear that it is not to the levels that we expect. As a constituency MSP with four train stations based within it, I very much understand the concerns that constituents have about the quality of service that has been experienced to date. I have outlined a range of reasons as to why it has had an impact on service provision at to date. What I expect ScotRail to do is to take appropriate action to address those matters as a matter of urgency. The elements of work that I have said that ScotRail has taken forward are actions that are intended to address those very issues. Additionally, alongside that, we can see the additional progress that has been made with the Donovan review that the ORR will publish its findings on the progress around implementing the recommendations in the Donovan review tomorrow, which will also set out the range of progress that ScotRail is making in addressing some of the infrastructure issues that also have to be addressed in order to improve reliability on a rail network right across the country. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the time to tackle the issue. It is absolute priority over the Christmas period, but I just want to reiterate that we have had the lowest performance in two decades. We have had overcrowded trains, we have got overworked staff, we have got services that are cancelled, we have got angry passengers and now we have got compensation payments that are rising. Cabinet secretary, you know that this is deplorable. When will you wake up and realise that perhaps the Scottish Government needs to reinstate the performance targets and hold ScotRail to account? I am a bit confused by the member's question. She is praising me for taking action to try to get the matter addressed and then saying that when will you wake up to the matter? I assure the member that I am very much awake to this particular issue, but I have also outlined a variety of different reasons as to why it has had an impact on performance to date with the late arrival of trains. That has had an impact on training of staff alongside industrial action. It has also had an impact on the training programme in preparation for the new time table being introduced, all of which have spiralled to create the particular difficulties that we have at the present moment. However, notwithstanding that, I understand that travelling public expects better. The three actions that I set out in my initial response are the actions that the Scottish Railers Committee took forward in order to address the issue and to make sure that we get the level of performance that we expect for travelling public in Scotland. I should point out to the member that some 60 per cent of delays and cancellations on the Scottish network are the responsibility of infrastructure problems, a matter that is a responsibility of the UK Government. I have made calls in this chamber time and time again that there is a need for us to align the rolling stock provision alongside infrastructure service delivery in order to make sure that it is much more passenger-focused. The most effective way to do that is to devolve it to the Scottish Parliament to allow us to put a model in place that delivers a much more passenger-focused train service. Colin Smyth will be followed by Mark MacDonald. Last month, S&P and Tory MSPs united to vote down Labour's proposal to end the failing franchise. Rather than taking enforcement action against ScotRail for plummeting performance, the transport secretary issued a waiver allowing them to deliver the worst punctuality since the franchise began. Had that licence to fail not been granted, the company would be in breach of the franchise and the Government could have issued a remedial plan notice against ScotRail. Is not it time that the transport secretary stopped bailing out ScotRail and started standing up for Scotland's hard-pressed rail passengers by demanding a proper remedial plan from ScotRail, showing how and crucially when they will hit the performance targets they are paid to hit, not the two inadequate improvement plans that simply do not go far enough? Will the transport secretary join with Labour in calling for a fair freeze until passengers start to get the decent service that they deserve? As I just mentioned, the update on the Donovan recommendations will be reported tomorrow by the office of the rail regulator, which will set out very clearly the progress that ScotRail and Network Rail are taking forward in addressing infrastructure and rolling stock issues that were recommended, which is improving services for passengers. I await to see what the findings of that report demonstrate. There are already some early signs that improvements are in particular being experienced in the Strathclyde electrics area, where there is greater resilience and there has been an improvement in performance overall, although not today because of an infrastructure failure in points outside Glasgow central. However, since it has been introduced in the course of the last week of the new timetable, we are seeing improvements in performance there as well. As the member also recognises, the standards that are set out in the franchise agreement remain in place. The waiver is to take recognition of issues out with ScotRail's control that have had an impact on performance. For example, Network Rail's performance, which the ORR has said is now at such a level, is investigating them for their failure to deliver properly and some of the weather incidents that have occurred that have an impact on it. However, the franchise agreement requirements remain in place and in force. I assure the member of that when you are investing in a region of more than £400 million in new and upgraded rolling stock in Scotland, you are intending to invest £5 billion in the next five years in railways in Scotland. That is a Government that is investing in rail infrastructure here in Scotland in doing it in a way that continues to drive up performance. Performance today has not been to the level that we expect, and the actions that ScotRail is taking forward are actions that they believe that can address the problems that have had to late. There are five more members who would like to ask a question. Mark McDonald is followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Passengers arriving at Dice station in my constituency this morning were notified that the 726 to Aberdeen was cancelled, the 759 to Aberdeen was delayed and the 831 to Aberdeen was cancelled. Those are important services for commuters in my constituency. Trains are also often running with fewer carriages, leading to experience for passengers that causes discomfort and inconvenience. My constituents welcome the improvements to the infrastructure between Aberdeen and Inverness, which will bring the infrastructure into the 21st century. However, the question that they are asking is when will the train service get there? I do not know what the specific reasons were for those particular services, but I suspect that it was relating to matters relating to crew, which is for the very reasons that I have outlined as to why ScotRail has had some challenges because of the late arrival of the new train types, train staff and some of the conductors. The member will also recognise that one of the key issues that we are trying to address is increasing capacity on the rail infrastructure by the end of 2019. There will be a 23 per cent increase in seating capacity, but that is dependent on the delivery of the new high-speed trains alongside the new Hitachi trains, which will allow the rest of the fleet to be cascaded out to other routes, including in and off East and North of Scotland. Once that programme is complete, there will be a significant uplift in seating capacity in Scotland and in the range of services that are available. The actions that are taken to address crew issues are actions that should help to improve the delivery of those services as the new fleet becomes available. Alex Cole-Hamilton is followed by John Finnie. Every weekday morning in recent weeks has seen hundreds of my constituents stranded at Dalmenny station and at South Gail due to a chronic underprovision of rolling stock on services bound for the centre of our nation's capital. Ali McKean messaged me this morning from the platform to say that not one soul got on the three carriage 757 train at Dalmenny. People are missing meetings and shifts. That must be costing the economy millions. That is not just a workforce or infrastructure issue, is it, cabinet secretary? It is a chronic underprovision in rolling stock. Can he tell the chamber and my constituents when the rolling stock issue will be resolved and what an effective timetable would meet with his approval? There are two areas of rolling stock that the member is referring to. One is the Hitachi trains of 385s, which have been delayed by Hitachi. There should be something in the region of about 56 of those available to ScotRail for the timetable change. Unfortunately, only 31 were provided, which has a direct impact on their ability to deliver that new rolling stock and to then cascade the rest of the train fleet. Wabtech has also failed to deliver on the refurbishment of the high-speed trains. I spoke to the global head president of Wabtech in the United States last week. They do not expect to complete that refurbishment programme by the end of 2019. The full Hitachi programme should be delivered for the next timetable change in May and in a discussion that I had with the global head of Hitachi just a fortnight ago. He gave me assurances that he is doing everything possible to make sure that he can deliver those carriages on time for the next timetable change. There are two companies that have let down ScotRail in delivering rolling stock, which is a direct impact on passenger experience. However, I can assure the member that we are applying every pressure possible to those companies to make sure that they deliver that additional rolling stock as quickly as possible in order to address the problems that we have at the present time. John Finlay to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, you appear to be commending a plan of action to address the plan of action in its shortcomings, which you described as unacceptable, said that you were disappointed and here we are again. Have you made any assessment of the reputational damage to the Scottish Government by not enforcing the terms of the franchise? You want to take control of Network Rail and you enjoy the support of the Scottish Green Party for that. I think that that would be a significant development. Why not end the franchise now and take control of ScotRail as well? For the very reasons that I have previously stated is that the franchise agreement still remains in place, the objectives of the franchise agreement remain in place, the 1 per cent waiver is on the basis of issues that have an impact on the franchise performance that is out with ScotRail's control, particularly infrastructure that has an impact on their performance alongside that of weather events as well. That is provided for within the franchise agreement and the enforcement of the rest of the franchise agreement provisions is already in place. As I have also stated to the member, there is a provision within the franchise agreement for it to be drawn to an end at an earlier stage if that is appropriate. As I said, I want to see the existing investment that we are making into our rail infrastructure and also into our rolling stock in Scotland to be successful. Our focus at this time is to make sure that we do it as impossible to make sure that we deliver the best possible rail services through travel and public in Scotland. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Edward Mountain. I refer to my register of interests. Has the UK Government apologised to the Scottish Government for the performance of network rail that it owns? There is absolutely no doubt that, over the course of the last couple of years, but in the last year in particular, the performance of network rail has had a very significant impact on rail service performance in Scotland. So much so that the ORR has investigated proceedings against network rail for its failure to be able to respond effectively to concerns that have been raised by service operators, including ScotRail, to address their issues of concern. When, in excess of 60 per cent of our delays and cancellations in Scotland are caused by network rail, it tells me that there is something very seriously wrong with the existing structural arrangements for our rail service. The way in which network rail is not accountable to this Parliament, to this Government and to the people of Scotland through its Scottish Government, in my view, is a major weakness in how we can deliver rail services in Scotland and the sooner we have direct control over the infrastructure elements of our rail network, alongside the passenger provisions of it as well, the better to deliver a better service to the travel and public in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and that, of course, is the point. Every time we have this discussion, the minister brings out the same point that it is all down to network rail. Given the fact that you have quoted the 60 per cent figure, could you break that down, please, Minister, for the amount that was down to weather, the amount that was broken down to broken trains and the amount that was down to track deaths, all of which, unfortunately, as they may be, cannot be controlled by network rail? The fact of the matter is that, even if you had control of network rail, you could not stop those things that I have mentioned. If you could split them out so that one can understand exactly how much is down to matters that can be controlled by network rail, I would be grateful. I am not entirely sure whether the member realises how illogical his question was, because a number of those issues are outwith the control of ScotRail as well, never mind network rail. To say that all of those are the responsibility of network rail is patently untrue, because I said that, on some occasions, it is an excess of 60 per cent that are the responsibility of network rail. I am disappointed that, as a convener of the REC committee in Scotland, he is unwilling to recognise that network rail has a significant impact on rail service performance here in Scotland. The very reason that the ORR is taking proceedings against network rail is because of its failure to be able to deliver the standards that are expected within a railway network, not just here in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, something that is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I apologise that there are three other members, in fact four members, who wish to ask questions, so I apologise to Mike Rumbles, Neil Findlay and Patrick Harvie in particular. It is time to move on to the next item of business, which is a ministerial statement on preparations for EU exit. The cabinet secretary will take quick questions at the end of his statement, so I would request any members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons.