 We are agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. We will start with question number 1 from Daniel Johnson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the integration of British transport police in Police Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, Hamza Yousaf. Throughout the re-planning process, commissioned by the Scottish ministers, we have committed to listening to stakeholders. As part of that re-plan recent advice from Police Scotland on a range of issues and the timing of implementation, Felly rwyf i'r hunain y Lwysgrifan arms. Mell eich my rooftop, wedi g UCF, a ddim yn gwahanol i'r bleslaethau a hefyd i'r pethau cymrydion hwnig ni, Ноch Fifianner. Gan bach o g burden o wybodaeth y Lwfr i'r myffer golljdod gyda Caerdyddur o'r sectorawn backwards i Gwyrd Aignerlu Swinidol, dyma peisiad aeth aeth i'r byd i g違う, oedd cynnalartainedwった wyn that hefyd ardw Children and 떡 lanol,� of fabricationsigmall compilation, ac beitho ddef yr warn spe indeed to the Scottish Parliament. For those who are involved in the absolute priority for all those involved, I hope, that the safety and security of officers staff will pass through this compared to those I thank the minister for that response. Indeed, I also welcome him to his position, and I look forward to our future exchanges as the new cabinet secretary. I believe that the cabinet secretary deserves credit for listening to experts, unions and officers and reviewing the future of devolution of railway policing. However, if he was really listening, he would know that full integration is not possible, or at the very least that both its costs and timescales are a complete mystery, because that was the message from the SPA board meeting last week. In his review, will he not just put off full integration on an interim basis, but rule it out altogether? The current priority, the immediate priority, is to find interim arrangements. I think that I have cross-party concerns around, for example, the accountability or lack thereof to this Parliament of British Transport Police, and that is something that has to be rectified, so that is the immediate priority. As I said, the long-term goal would be to keep full integration under review. I think that that is a sensible thing to do, because there are benefits of full integration, which again came out in evidence sessions during the debate and from evidence of stakeholders. For example, such things as a single command structure and so on and so forth, but that frankly is not the immediate priority, the immediate priority in order to give certainty of course to staff, to officers and others, and to, of course, very importantly ensure that there is accountability and democratic accountability of VTPs, is to come to some interim solutions. What I would say in that respect is that my door will be very open to stakeholders, but I should also say to all members of the opposition to engage and to listen to those ideas that might well come forward from across the chamber. The cabinet secretary knows that if there was a viable route forward for full integration, it would have been found by now, two years on, and we are no closer to knowing the costs or the timescales to make this happen. A two-month review is simply not going to find an answer in that time. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that, as long as full integration remains on the table, there remains a great uncertainty for officers and staff? If he does, is it not true that the conclusion of his review is inevitable that all he is doing is prolonging the uncertainty that is ultimately unnecessary? No, I disagree with his analysis for a couple of reasons. One is that the review that will be undertaking, the engagement that we will be having with stakeholders, will not be focused on finding a timetable and a timeline for full integration. It will be in and around what will be the other options that we can explore to give effect to the Smith commission's cross-party recommendations of the devolution of railway policing to Scotland, so that will be the purpose of that engagement. In terms of full integration, as I say, that remains a long-term goal, which will be kept under review. Therefore, if he is right and those who oppose full integration are right, that is something that will be kept under review. It is not the immediate priority, the immediate priority is to find other options that will give effect to the Smith commission. However, I would give him that challenge and he and I spoke when I was put into position in my first week in the role that he knows my approach as one where I look for good ideas wherever they come from across the chamber. I look forward to hearing his proposals on the other options to give effect to the Smith commission's recommendations. Liam Kerr. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the commission's service model, which he previously opposed, is now very much on the table? I do not want to prejudge the engagement that I am about to have with stakeholders. Some of that engagement is being taken forward today between officials and stakeholders and over tomorrow. I will engage personally with stakeholders, too, but we should certainly be looking for good ideas from wherever they come from. I know the commission model. There were some reservations in the commission model. I think that they are legitimate to express. However, I do not want to prejudge that, but we will certainly be looking and reexamining all the options that have been considered before, but also if there are other options that have not been considered before to be brought forward and to be examined as part of this process. Liam McArthur. I also join in congratulating the cabinet secretary on his new appointment. Does he now regret rejecting the amendment that I lodged at stage 3 to delay the implementation of the merger at the very least? Will he give an assurance to the Parliament that detailed business plans will be developed on any options that are being consulted on and that Parliament will have a role in determining how we go forward? Given that the chief constable of Police Scotland has made clear his views in relation to the risk to public safety of pressing ahead with merger? That point that Liam McArthur is exceptionally important. I have made this decision based on the advice from Police Scotland. It would be foolish of me to have ignored that advice in terms of their concerns around ICT alignment and so on and so forth. That is important to keep at the heart very much of that. On other asks about business cases and so on and so forth, yes, whatever option we come forward with and that will be with consultation with stakeholders, of course. I think that it is important to give as much confidence around that model that we choose to explore. I will be happy to commit to ensuring that there is as much scrutiny of that option and as much transparency of that option to this Parliament as possible. Rona Mackay Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the Scottish Government remain committed to working fully with stakeholders, as they have done so far? Yes, of course. I will look to do that. Even for those who are very much so with those that have been in opposition of full integration, but also for those across the chamber, it is certainly worth keeping that engagement going. Clearly, from my announcement of re-examining the options, I have already had a number of organisations come to me saying that they want to engage. My door will be very much open to that engagement. I look forward to seeing what that engagement concludes in terms of the process that is moving forward. John Finnie Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary's fail to address legitimate and on-going concerns of BT officers and staff. Can the cabinet secretary detail what role that failure has played in his failure to deliver on the will of Parliament on this important issue? If I had gone against Police Scotland's advice to me around the difficulties of getting a timescale and a timeline for full integration, particularly the primary concern and ICT, but other concerns too, I do not doubt that John Finnie would probably be the first one to pull me up in front of this Parliament to say that we had gone against Police Scotland's advice. He will have to accept, as I have done, of our period of reflection early on in this role, that although that was the intention of the Government for the Integration and the Will of the Parliament supported by his party, it would be foolish to have ignored Police Scotland's advice. I am more than happy to speak to John Finnie, as I would with any other member, in more detail about some of his concerns. However, the path that I have chosen to go down is very much based on the advice that Police Scotland has given me, and in terms of giving more certainty to officers and staff in BTP, as I said, as soon as we can get on with examining the other options for devolution of railway policing in Scotland, the better. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with ScotRail and South Ayrshire Council regarding the implemented exclusion zone around air railways station, which is causing disruption for many passengers, including those travelling south of Ayr to Gervan and Strunrar. I discussed the situation with the leader and chief executive of South Ayrshire Council last week. Transport Scotland officials have engaged with senior officials at both the ScotRail Alliance and South Ayrshire Council on several occasions since the exclusion zone at air station has affected platform 3 and 4. Additionally, Transport Scotland established a new task force, including other relevant directorates from the Scottish Government to support South Ayrshire Council in identifying solutions to immediate safety concerns. The key objective is to ensure that a full rail service can be restored safely, as soon as possible, but that any long-term solutions contribute to the economic prosperity of the town centre and other affected areas. The air station hotel in the railway building is a structure, majority owned by a Malaysian businessman, Mr Ung, along with Network Rail. My understanding is that Mr Ung has refused to engage with South Ayrshire Council to work to make the structure safe, which has resulted in platform 3 and 4 being closed altogether. That means that trains are unable to run between air, maybell, Gervan and Strunrar. Can the cabinet secretary outline what, if any action that the Scottish Government can take to make Mr Ung accountable for one of his many UK properties? I recognise the significant disruption that platform closure is causing to air station and to a number of the other stations, particularly Mabel, Gervan and Strunrar. As it stands, the Scottish Government has no powers to take action against the owner of the building. Local authority has powers under the building Scotland Act 2003 to take action on owners where their building has become dangerous or fallen into a state of disrepair. South Ayrshire Council has used those powers to serve a dangerous buildings notice and are currently working to make the building safe and to allow the platforms to reopen as soon as possible. The member will appreciate that building owners are ultimately responsible for the upkeep and safety of the buildings that they own. Emma Harper Again, I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. I have also had many constituents contact me regarding the disruption, including one young constituent, Strunrar, not being able to get the train to university and others being unable to get to work. Can the cabinet secretary therefore give a commitment that the Scottish Government will ensure appropriate alternative transport links are put in place and indeed monitored while the situation with air station is on-going? Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure I can give the member that assurance, because ScotRail is presently providing a replacement bus for rail passengers wishing to travel from Ayr on to Strunrar. Passengers wishing to travel to Strunrar from Kilmarnock and vice versa are also being provided with a taxi to and from Ayr station and for onward travel by bus. ScotRail will continue to keep it under review to see whether there is any further action that it can take in order to try and reduce the inconvenience to the travelling public. John Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister is well aware of the much reduced rail service between Ayr and Glasgow, which affects my constituents in the Ayr press, Strunrar and many others on the Ayr to Glasgow rail line. Although I appreciate that circumstances cannot change or different options be taken before a structural engineers report is produced, can the minister tell Parliament when the report will be produced and what his plans are for the services on the line if the station hotel at Ayr has to be demolished? If, on the other hand, the building can be saved, what support can the Scottish Government give to restoring or redeveloping the station hotel in Ayr? John Scott Presiding Officer, ScotRail is continuing to keep the present emergency timetable in place under review to look at whether there are further measures that it can take in order to address some of the issues, particularly around some of the issues around the number of people who are trying to use the service as it moves towards Glasgow central, particularly around the Paisley area, whether they can add additional carriages at a later stage. What I can also assure the member is that the responsibility here for the decision to apply an exclusion zone is for the local authority. Any change to that exclusion zone is a matter for the local authority. The assistance that the task force is providing is to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to identify what action could be taken in order to reduce that exclusion zone. That work is on-going at the present moment with engineers. Once South Ayrshire Council has that report, it will share that with the task force to look at what action can then be taken in order to make sure that any measures that can be implemented are taken forward as quickly as possible. We will continue to support South Ayrshire Council in addressing those issues. We are providing legal advice and building advice from our experts in the Scottish Government. They understand all the responsibilities and actions that they can take, but the report from engineers will allow us to make a decision on whether the exclusion zone can be reduced. That will be a matter for South Ayrshire Council, but we will support them in providing them with what assistance we can to take that action forward once the report is completed. In April, I chaired a public meeting in Ayrtown hall organised by local campaigner Esther Clarke, packed out by residents frustrated at the demise of air station hotels. As the cabinet secretary, I understand the anger in the community at the utter neglect of the former hotel. Will the Scottish Government take action not only to ensure that the building is made safe so that we can end the current real chaos but to put in place a long-term plan to bring the historic building back into use for the benefit of the local community? As a member, we will appreciate the responsibility for the condition of the building lies with the private owner of the building, who has clearly neglected it over a very extended period of time. I recognise that South Ayrshire Council has also taken action to address those issues earlier in the course of the year, without the success of engaging effectively with the owner of the building. As I just mentioned to John Scott, the decision to apply an exclusion zone is the responsibility of the local authority. The plans that it has for the use of that building, working with the owner and the wider town centre redevelopment is a matter for South Ayrshire Council. What we are providing with is the support and assistance that they require in order to make sure that we understand what action can be taken to reduce the exclusion zone, to get the platforms reopened, to get the train station operating back to its normal capacity as soon as possible. Once South Ayrshire Council has got that report completed and they are able to share that with at the task force, they will be provided with additional support to make sure that action is taken for that as quickly as possible so that we can get the station returned to its normal function. 3. Murdo Fraser To ask the Scottish Government how NHS boards ensure that patients' concerns regarding surgical practices are properly addressed. NHS boards have governance and appraisal mechanisms for their clinicians. That includes the boards being responsible for a system of appraisal and job planning for each consultant. In 2017-18, boards implemented the revised NHS complaints procedure, which provides a formal route for patients and their families to raise concerns. The organisational duty of candor legislation came into force in Scotland on 1 April this year. The duty of candor legislation also requires organisations to provide an apology to those who have been harmed and to involve them in identifying organisational learning and improvements where necessary. Murdo Fraser Can I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and welcome her to her new role? This week, shocking details relating to the case of the NHS Tayside surgeon, Professor Sam Eljamel, were disclosed in a BBC investigation. Professor Eljamel's accused of making a series of mistakes while operating on patients at NHS Tayside. At the time of an external investigation concluded that he was injuring patients but, despite this, he was allowed to continue operating. It appears that the NHS Tayside had neither the audit systems in place to pick up on his mistakes or to decide on the senior management team to prevent this from happening. What assurance can the cabinet secretary give us that, in other Scottish health boards, we will not see similar incidents where surgeons are free to operate despite concerns being raised about their abilities? Gareth Higgins Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I am sure that members will appreciate, there is a degree to which I am limited in what I can express here, but let me be really clear to Mr Fraser and to the chamber that any instance of harm that is incurred by any patient in our health service is a matter that I take extremely seriously. We have a number of measures in place that boards should be following. It is worth mentioning the globally recognised Scottish patient safety programme, which has had surgical safety as one of its workstreams since it began and has led to over a 20 per cent reduction in surgical mortality across Scotland. I have today asked for an assurance from all our health boards, from their chairs and chief executives of joint assurance that all the steps that this Government expects them to be following in terms of compliance with those measures and others are indeed being followed. Our chief medical officer and others will continue to pursue those matters to ensure that we have the best patient safety that we possibly can in this country. I thank the cabinet secretary for that full and very helpful response. I do not know if she watched last night's BBC documentary and, if like me, she felt angry and sad for the patients who recounted their personal stories in that. We learned today from the courier newspaper that Professor L Gimell is still holding himself out as working at Ninewell hospital, despite the fact that his contract there has been severed. In wake of all the new evidence that is coming out, does the Scottish Government accept that there is now the case for a fully independent investigation into those issues? What I do accept is, as I said before, that any instance of harm to a patient in our national health service is a matter of considerable concern. I take it very seriously. What I am doing is reviewing the situation with respect to this particular instance and looking more widely across our boards. In that, I will give due consideration to what other further steps we might sensibly take in order to ensure that we have the level of patient safety across Scotland that we aim for and that our statistics currently indicate that we have overall across the NHS.