The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Matheson on policing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
I welcome this early opportunity to update Parliament on policing in Scotland.
Our police officers and those who work to support them continue to do an excellent job in challenging circumstances, and I pay tribute to them again—all the men and women within Police Scotland who work day in, day out to protect our communities.
Crime is at a 40-year low, with violent crime at its lowest level since 1974, and there is now more consistent access to specialist expertise and equipment across the country. Credit for this goes to the officers and staff across Police Scotland.
We were all shocked and saddened by the terrible incident that claimed the lives of Lamara Bell and John Yuill. Our thoughts continue to be with their families and friends.
Police Scotland has publicly apologised and, on behalf of this Government, I repeat my sympathies. I also apologise to the families for the loss of their loved ones. We are truly sorry for what has happened.
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner is carrying out an independent investigation into the circumstances of the incident under the direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and it is a live and on-going investigation.
The remit of the review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland that I instructed was to provide an accurate picture of the current capacity and capability within all control centres—both staff and systems—and the processes in place to ensure that all calls are handled and dispatched appropriately.
HMICS recommends that the reform programme for the control centres is completed as planned. However, it makes it clear that that should take place only when the current control rooms in Govan and Bilston Glen have a full complement of trained staff and when the systems and processes are capable of taking additional call demand from the north, when the new area control room in Dundee is fully operational, and after a detailed and independently assured transition plan is developed and delivered.
HMICS recommends that centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should remain open while that takes place. That is what will now happen. The remaining phase will proceed only once the Scottish Police Authority and HMICS are completely reassured that all the issues have been addressed.
Police Scotland states that the recommendation will require the accelerated recruitment of 70 to 75 call-handling staff to consolidate service centre operations, plus additional area control room staff to ensure that the combined north area control room in Dundee is fully operational before the closure of the Aberdeen and Inverness control rooms. It will also require the retention of staff in Aberdeen and Inverness for a period beyond 31 March 2016 to allow for an extensive handover of operations. This will, of course, be subject to discussion with unions and staff.
There is a cost attached to implementing the recommendation, estimated by Police Scotland at around £1.4 million in this financial year. I can confirm to the Parliament today that I am making £1.4 million of new money available immediately for Police Scotland to meet this cost.
The remaining phases of the change programme will be subject to regular and intensive scrutiny by both the SPA and HMICS. I have asked HMICS to ensure that any further recommendations on the operation of call handling are shared as the review progresses to allow the SPA and Police Scotland to act as quickly as possible.
The M9 incident had terrible consequences. I do not want any family to go through such an experience again.
We will also take early action on stop and search. In March, I asked John Scott, the eminent human rights Queen’s counsel, to consider the legal framework around stop and search. His independent advisory group has reported, and I published its report today.
The group recommends that a statutory code of practice underpins how stop and search is used. We will implement in full the recommendations. I therefore confirm that the current system of consensual stop and search will end once the code comes into effect. I have informed the Justice Committee’s convener that I intend to lodge appropriate amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 to give effect to that.
There are two further areas where investigations are on-going, and I will update Parliament on the progress of those investigations as much as I can.
The PIRC investigation, under the direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, into the death of Sheku Bayoh in police custody is well advanced. Members will recognise that I am constrained in what I can say. However, my thoughts are with Mr Bayoh’s family at this terrible time.
As the PIRC emphasised earlier today, a number of expert forensic pathologists have been commissioned, on the instruction of the Lord Advocate, to further investigate and to provide an opinion on how Mr Bayoh died. The Lord Advocate and the PIRC have met the family and are committed to keeping them informed of the progress of their on-going investigation.
Media interest over the summer has also focused on reported breaches of the code of practice on the acquisition and disclosure of communications data, which came into force on 25 March this year. A final determination by the interception of communications commissioner is awaited. The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office—IOCCO—has made clear that it would be inappropriate for it to identify the forces under investigation while its investigation is on-going, and it has set out clear reasoning for that position.
In light of that investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment further, other than to say that ministers expect all public authorities to comply with the code of practice on accessing communications data. The press must be able to operate freely, with appropriate protections, and no individual should have their communications data improperly accessed.
Policing in Scotland has gone through the most significant public sector reform in a generation. Although there have been challenges, the creation of Police Scotland has allowed us to maintain officer numbers 1,000 higher than they were in 2007. That should be compared with the situation south of the border, where policing numbers were this week predicted to fall to their lowest level in 40 years.
National units are ensuring a consistent approach to the most complex and time-consuming issues, such as serious and organised crime, rape and murder. Those hard-fought gains would not have been achieved without the reform of policing in Scotland.
On Tuesday, the First Minister set out in the programme for government the next steps that this Government will take to strengthen policing. I will provide Parliament with further detail on how those issues will be taken forward.
Reform has increased scrutiny. With 32 local scrutiny boards, there are more councillors than ever before having a say on policing priorities in their area. As Parliament will recall, to ensure that the day-to-day operation of the police is entirely independent of Government, Police Scotland is accountable to the SPA, which in turn is accountable to this Government, with the Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing providing regular and active challenge. There is independent oversight from HMICS and the PIRC, as well as from Audit Scotland.
Police Scotland has faced greater levels of political, public and media scrutiny than ever before, but I believe that we can strengthen it further. The chief constable will therefore undertake a new programme of scrutiny sessions, to provide more direct local accountability for the performance of policing in local areas. The approach will give local councillors the opportunity to discuss policing in their areas directly with the chief constable, senior officers and members of the SPA.
I want to explore further with local conveners how the approach will work, at the local scrutiny summit that I will hold on 23 September. There will be an open dialogue, and I will welcome contributions from members of all parties on how local scrutiny can be enhanced.
The Scottish Government set the national priorities for policing prior to the implementation of police reform. We will now engage with stakeholders and communities on setting new national priorities for policing in Scotland. We will do so in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders who have an interest in policing. This is an opportunity for people to tell us what they think the priorities should be in future.
Members will be aware that the chief constable announced last week that he will be stepping down. I thank Sir Stephen House again for his service and contribution to policing in Scotland. He provided leadership at a crucial time, with a strong focus on tackling violent crime, and he has made a major contribution to recorded crime falling to a 40-year low.
Members will also be aware that SPA chair Vic Emery announced that he will not seek reappointment when his three-year term ends this month. Following an extensive recruitment process, I can confirm that Andrew Flanagan will become the new chair. He will take up post from Monday 7 September. Andrew has served as chief executive, chairman and non-executive director in a number of organisations. He brings an abundance of experience in challenging and high-profile posts in the public, private and third sectors, and I am confident that he will prove to be an excellent appointment.
One of Andrew Flanagan’s key early priorities will be to appoint a suitable successor to Sir Stephen House, who can carry forward the process of reform to its conclusion and consolidate the delivery of its many benefits. The SPA has already started that process. I have already spoken to Andrew, and my immediate ask is that he undertake a review of police governance, supported by a reference group to contribute views and suggestions. That will ensure that accountability arrangements for policing can build on the lessons that have been learned to date, so that robust arrangements are in place for the future.
I have identified four specific areas on which I want the chair to focus: ensuring that local interests are effectively represented in the national scrutiny process; ensuring that the SPA has the appropriate structures and skills to undertake effective scrutiny; ensuring that the SPA, HMICS, the Scottish Government and the Parliament have the material and data required to hold Police Scotland to account; and reviewing how the authority works with other stakeholders, to ensure that its approach is rooted in partnership and contributes to wider objectives across the public sector. I have published the full remit of the review today.
What I have set out today is a significant and wide-ranging set of measures, which will strengthen policing in Scotland. I know that there have been challenges. Some events over the summer have prompted legitimate public concern. However, the fundamentals of our policing remain sound. We have a skilled and committed workforce of officers and staff, who deliver for our communities every day, and we have a process of reform to protect policing from the effects of austerity.
The actions that I am announcing will address the challenges and help us to learn from the initial years of reform. They will ensure that policing in Scotland is effective, accountable and community focused. I look forward to working with members to ensure that we have the police service that communities expect and deserve.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. I welcome the tone in which he delivered it and I join him by offering Labour members’ complete support for the officers and staff who deliver policing across Scotland in the interests of our community.
However, today we have received two weighty reports that reflect the significant problems at the heart of policing across Scotland—problems that were unseen and untouched by the SPA and the Government until tragedy and controversy struck. Shortly after the cabinet secretary announced the call-handling review, he said that there was nothing to suggest that there had been a systemic failure or that the call-handling centre was overburdened. Given the damning contents of the HMICS review, which indicates the very opposite, will Michael Matheson tell Parliament on what basis he and the chief constable were justified in pointing the finger at an unnamed officer and accusing an individual of failure?
Scrutiny is about asking questions. Governance and accountability are about getting answers and justifications. In the light of the reports, will the cabinet secretary commit to delivering what I have asked for since arriving in this Parliament, which is an independent system of rigorous governance and accountability that aims to deliver the best police service in the world? Will he enable the SPA’s incoming convener, Mr Flanagan, to be appointed by Parliament to undertake that endeavour?
Graeme Pearson referred to the two reports. He should be aware that John Scott was asked to review stop and search back in March, not in the summer. That report was commissioned and the independent advisory group was established in March.
Graeme Pearson made a point about the M9 incident. Following that incident, I had discussions with the chief constable after he had looked at what happened, and my comments were based on the advice that Police Scotland provided. As Mr Pearson will recognise, I instructed HMICS to undertake a review to address capacity, capability and process, in order to be assured on whether there were any systemic failings. I set up HMICS’s review because I wanted assurance that nothing like this will ever happen again.
I welcome what we have had from the HMICS review so far, which is a way in which we can start to address the issues. Once we have the final report in October, we will be able to look at what further measures may be necessary. Given the range of issues that HMICS has already considered, I am sure that no one is in any doubt that it is conducting anything other than a very thorough and independent investigation of all call handling by Police Scotland.
Mr Pearson has raised the issues of scrutiny, accountability and how the national process fits into the local process. He raised those issues with me in June, when I was before the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. I have stated that there is a need to tie local accountability into the national process. As I set out, the governance review will be responsible for looking at how we can achieve that more effectively.
I am determined that we make Police Scotland accountable by ensuring that there is strong local community input into shaping how policing is provided in communities. We can achieve that much more effectively with the national review and the scrutiny summit, and by doing so we will ensure that policing is delivered in local communities in a way that local people want.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. With an extra £1.4 million having to be allocated to recruiting support staff, it was clearly a false economy to make so many crucial support staff redundant in the first place. Those individuals are essential to the smooth running of our police force and to handling calls properly in an effort to keep our streets safe and protect the public.
Given the vexing problems that are associated with the centralised 101 call system, it is astounding that HMICS’s interim report recommends that the reform programme for control centres should be completed as planned, especially given the concerns and complaints from rank-and-file officers about its operation and about the target-led approach to stop and search. Will the cabinet secretary therefore confirm today, as part of the governance review, that establishing a system of meaningful dialogue with rank-and-file officers is included in the SPA remit and that the Scottish Government, which has been in charge of policing for eight years, will ensure that that is delivered?
To make progress on the issue, I can say that the SPA regularly engages with staff associations and unions to discuss issues that are of mutual interest and concern. I have no doubt that there are ways in which it could improve that dialogue but, as the member will be aware, one of the four key areas that I have asked the incoming chair of the SPA to consider as part of the national review is how it engages with stakeholders and the contribution that they can make. I hope that Margaret Mitchell is reassured that the remit that I have issued to the incoming chair for the national review will assist us in ensuring effective dialogue with a range of stakeholders on how the governance of policing is taken forward.
I refer the cabinet secretary to recommendation 6 of John Scott’s review group. I welcome the suggestion that the Scottish Government may legislate for statutory authority to search people who are 18 years old or under if they are suspected of carrying alcohol, but what if a child is suspected of carrying drugs or a knife for their own use, for sale or because someone has secreted those items about them? Consent would not be appropriate and there could be urgency. Will the proposed statutory code of guidance deal with what is actually a welfare issue?
In its report, the advisory group identifies that there may be a legislative gap on the searching of under-18s for alcohol. However, the group is not persuaded about that, although it believes that we should have a consultation to consider the issue further. The group also considered welfare matters for children, and it was not persuaded that there is a need to make specific provision for that with a legislative change, because it believes that existing legislation deals with the matter. However, as I said, we are taking forward all the recommendations, which means that we will also consult on the statutory code of practice, so all parties will have an opportunity to scrutinise it and to comment on what its content should be.
Following that process, it will be my responsibility to bring the code before Parliament, and I have no doubt that, as is often the case with the committee that Ms Grahame chairs, members will vigorously and thoroughly consider whether the code deals effectively with all the issues that she has raised. I am confident that, by going through the consultation exercise, we can address any other issues that may arise before we finalise the code.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and John Scott QC for his thoughtful report. For two years, SNP ministers insisted that they were comfortable with consensual stop and search and refused our appeals to intervene. Meanwhile, Police Scotland conducted 1 million unlawful searches, and young and vulnerable people were targeted. In February, I lodged amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to abolish consensual stop and search. Will the cabinet secretary now undertake to work with me to end that utterly discredited practice?
I press the cabinet secretary to go further. In setting up the single police force, the Government set off a chain reaction that continues to build. Stop and search is just one indication of the top-down, target-driven culture that exists in Police Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary therefore go further and instruct an independent review of Police Scotland’s management and culture?
As the First Minister set out on Tuesday in the programme for government, we have already instructed a review of the governance processes in Police Scotland. I have given further details of that today, and that sits alongside the other work that we will do to build in further improvements to scrutiny.
The member referred to a top-down culture of targets, but she will appreciate that there is operational independence from ministers in setting targets for the police. I have no doubt that an incoming chief constable will consider what they believe to be the most appropriate way forward in setting any targets or setting the culture in the organisation. I also have no doubt that the SPA will want to engage with them on that.
As for stop and search, which the member referred to, I recognise her long-standing interest in pursuing that. It is worth noting that, over the past couple of years under Police Scotland, the level of stop and search has been dropping dramatically; indeed, it has dropped by some 40 per cent. According to the figures for June, which are out today, 69 per cent of searches were statutory and 31 per cent were consensual, which is almost exactly a reversal of the 2014 percentages. Significant changes have already taken place but, as I said, we now believe that a statutory code of practice should set out the powers of the police on the matter. Once the consultation has been done and we have finalised the code of practice, we will implement the end of consensual stop and search.
I am more than happy to work with the member on the amendments that she lodged to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and to consider whether they are appropriate or need to be adapted to fulfil the objective of putting the statutory code of practice in the bill.
Given how matters stand, does the cabinet secretary agree with Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation that, if anyone wants to see a real crisis in policing, they need only cast their eyes to our friends in England and Wales, where police numbers are set to fall to levels that have not been seen since the 1970s?
There is absolutely no doubt that reforming policing in Scotland was an essential requirement in protecting our policing numbers. We have continued to have 1,000 more police officers than we inherited back in 2007, and the structural reform that we delivered assisted us in maintaining those numbers.
It is clear that the failure to address some of the significant inefficiencies in police services in other parts of the UK means that they are facing significant cuts to police numbers. For example, since 2009, almost 17,000 police officers have been lost in England, and it is predicted that another 20,000 to 22,000—[Interruption.]
Order.
—police officers could be lost over the coming years.
I am absolutely clear about the benefits of police reform in releasing resource and helping to maintain our police numbers. As a Government, we will continue to move forward with police reform to ensure that we have the most efficient and most effective police service that we can have.
I have been supporting the family of Sheku Bayoh, who died in police custody this year, and I find it unacceptable that it took more than a month for police officers to provide evidence to the PIRC. The delay appears to have been caused by a memo that the Police Service of Scotland issued advising officers not to give evidence. That was a grave error. Will the review of police governance look at how Police Scotland responds to deaths in custody and examine the extent of the PIRC’s powers to deal with such cases?
I am not sure whether the member is aware that HMICS has already looked into how Police Scotland deals with individuals in custody. The report, which was issued last year, showed significant improvements in Police Scotland’s handling of individuals in custody and how it deals with such matters.
However, given that this is a live investigation, it is most appropriate to allow the PIRC and the Crown Office to undertake it in a thorough and detailed way, as the Lord Advocate and the PIRC have already set out. Once that process has been completed, it will be appropriate to consider whether further measures are required.
Over the summer, I discussed with the commissioner at the PIRC whether the PIRC has any concerns about the powers that it has to undertake such investigations. The commissioner’s view is that the PIRC has adequate powers for the purposes of undertaking those investigations, but the PIRC keeps those matters under review.
As I have said in the past, if at any point there is an indication that the PIRC’s powers are not adequate to undertake such investigations appropriately, we as a Government will act, but it is most appropriate to allow the PIRC and the Crown Office to complete the live investigation. Once it has been completed, we can consider whether further measures are necessary.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board some recent serious and tragic issues. However, I wonder whether he agrees with me that the overall picture in policing is very positive. Violent crime is at its lowest since 1974 and we need to keep the present problems in perspective.
As I said, the fundamentals of policing in Scotland are very strong and we intend to make sure that we continue to build on them. I also outlined that crime is at a 40-year low, with particular areas such as violent crime at their lowest levels. However, it is clear that there is more that we need to do to make sure that we continue to make progress in tackling crime within our society.
I have no doubt that, as we move forward, Police Scotland will continue to make a very significant and positive contribution to reducing crime in communities across Scotland.
The cabinet secretary has accepted the recommendation in the interim HMICS report to suspend the planned closures of the control rooms in Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee. Therefore, does he regret that Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and his predecessor refused to listen to the concerns that were expressed by control centre staff, police officers and elected representatives in Dumfries and Galloway prior to the closure of the Dumfries control room in May last year? Does he accept that, had the warnings given by experienced police officers and staff been heeded, some of the subsequent problems with centralised call handling might have been avoided?
My focus is on moving forward on that issue and on making sure that the issues that are identified by HMICS are addressed appropriately and quickly. It is important that the experience that we had with the M9 incident is never allowed to happen again and to make sure that all the systems and processes that we have in place are there to minimise that risk. That is why we are providing the additional £1.4 million to Police Scotland—it is new money to allow Police Scotland to take forward that work as quickly as possible. I have also asked HMICS to make sure that it flags up to both the SPA and Police Scotland any issues that it identifies over the course of its investigation in the next six to eight weeks to ensure that those issues can be addressed quickly and effectively. I will continue to engage with HMICS to make sure that appropriate actions are taken where issues have been identified.
Audit Scotland and HMICS were fairly critical of police boards and the poor level of scrutiny and governance in the past. We are probably seeing a greater degree of scrutiny and accountability than ever before. Can the cabinet secretary say more—[Interruption.]
Order.
—about the scrutiny and accountability that Police Scotland will face in the future?
I think that any fair-minded person would recognise that Police Scotland is under more scrutiny than any of the eight legacy forces that we had previously. That is not just my view; that is the view of the chair of the Scottish Police Federation, who has made that very clear.
I believe that we can enhance that scrutiny and accountability yet further. As I said, the chief constable will meet scrutiny board chairpersons regularly—several times a year—to be questioned on local policing matters.
At the scrutiny summit that I announced back in June of this year when I appeared before the Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, I want to look at how we can build on that and make sure that the good practice on some of our local policing scrutiny committees is rolled out to policing scrutiny committees in other parts of the country. I want to hear what those on the scrutiny panels think could assist them in undertaking that enhanced scrutiny. I have no doubt that members across the Parliament will want to express their view on how they believe that scrutiny can be further enhanced.
It is important to recognise that we now have more scrutiny of policing in Scotland than ever before, but I believe that we can build on the existing scrutiny process and make it better. In doing so, we will make sure that we have a much more transparent and accountable police force in Scotland, and one that the people of Scotland can have faith and trust in.
John Scott is an eminent Queen’s counsel and he says in his report that there is a lack of a legal framework in relation to stop and search and that the practice is of “questionable lawfulness and legitimacy”. Would the cabinet secretary acknowledge that many people will be astonished that, in response to that, notwithstanding the Government’s legislative programme, he has said:
“I therefore confirm that the current system of consensual stop and search will end once the code comes into effect”?
Many people would have anticipated that he would have called for no stop and search to take place that does not have a basis in common law or statutory law. Does he appreciate that?
As the member will be aware, Police Scotland is presently operating on the basis that it has a presumption against carrying out consensual stop and search and is no longer undertaking any consensual stop and searches on under-12s. That is reflected in the figures that I mentioned, which were published today.
I am taking the approach that has been outlined by the independent advisory group. It recommends that we should have a consultation on its draft code of conduct and that we should then have a phased introduction as a changeover takes place in how stop and search is undertaken. I think that the best thing for us to do is to listen to that advice and to take it forward. That is why I will move quickly to make sure that we have an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that will give effect to a statutory code of conduct and to have that implemented once the consultation process has been completed.
I think that we should listen to the independent advisory group, which says that we should move forward in stages. That will involve providing training and information for officers on the change of approach that will come about. In pursuing that approach, we can make sure that we get the balance right between the rights of individuals and the rights of the police to be able to pursue legitimate issues. I believe that the independent advisory group has struck that balance.
Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the 101 service centre in Aberdeen led the way in policing not just in Scotland but across the UK in pioneering modern call-handling technology? Does he regret the damage that has been done to the quality of that service as it has been run down over the past 18 months, as described in today’s interim report? Will he now act to restore a high-quality public service by scrapping the closure plans altogether?
The member is almost inviting me not to go with the HMICS recommendation that the end model of the changeover of the contact and control centres should continue and that progress in pursuing that should be maintained. In the intervening period, we should consolidate and make sure that we have sufficient resilience in the other contact and control centres that are in place at the moment.
I intend to make sure that there is sufficient financial resource to allow the provision that is currently provided by the contact centres in Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness to continue. I intend to go with the recommendation that HMICS has set out. The member’s view is that we should take a different route altogether. Given the nature of HMICS’s expertise in this matter, I am much more inclined to go with HMICS’s approach than Lewis Macdonald’s.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and I agree that the fundamentals of our policing remain sound, as does the new structure.
On accountability, does the cabinet secretary agree that chief constables have stepped down in the past, before the creation of Police Scotland, and that the solution is not to change the structure, as has been proved south of the border, where South Yorkshire’s police and crime commissioner resigned from the Labour Party but refused to stand down from office?
I believe that the overall architecture that resulted from the legislation to reform the police and fire services is right for taking forward those services. What we can do is strengthen elements of that architecture, particularly in relation to scrutiny and accountability. The measures that I have set out this afternoon, along with what the First Minister set out in the programme for government, will assist us in achieving that.
Now that the new chair of the SPA is in place, the process of recruiting a replacement for Sir Stephen House will move forward. I have no doubt that, once we have appointed a new chief constable, they will want to reflect on the present standing of Police Scotland and consider whether they want to take a different approach in various areas.
I am determined to ensure that there is a good level of local engagement in the decision-making process on how Police Scotland should move forward. I have asked the new chair of the SPA to take that forward as part of the wider governance review. I would expect that to be reflected in the new national standards that we set for policing in Scotland, which will provide the new chief constable with a clear sense of direction about what we expect policing to deliver in future.
I note that the cabinet secretary says that the chief constable will undertake a new programme of scrutiny sessions. What training will be given to local councillors, who already have a very heavy workload, to ensure that they properly interrogate the chief constable and the SPA board so that they are held to account?
Will the membership of the SPA board be reviewed, given that it failed to meet during the summer when there was clearly a crisis within Police Scotland?
I do not know whether the member missed the point that I made about the scrutiny summit later this month. The very purpose of that summit is to bring together the conveners of the policing scrutiny boards to consider how those boards—which are working very effectively and are doing a good job—can spread good practice to other parts of the country. By engaging with those boards, we will hear exactly what support and assistance they think is necessary to achieve that.
If some of them need some training, we will of course look at that. However, it is important to ensure that the quality of that engagement translates into action in the response from the SPA and Police Scotland. I am determined to ensure that there is a step change in the way in which the governance of Police Scotland and the SPA is taken forward.
In relation to scrutiny and practice, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Police Scotland will neither confirm nor deny that it is monitoring the activities of environmental, trade union and political activists or say whether that information is being provided to third parties?
Will the cabinet secretary, in Government time, bring a debate on policing to the chamber so that we can discuss all the issues relating to the state of Police Scotland?
Finally, will the cabinet secretary join me in condemning John Mason’s grossly insensitive comments about keeping perspective? Mr Mason, people have died. You should be ashamed of your comments.
Mr Findlay, you are asking questions about the statement, not the comments of others.
I shall deal with the two substantive points from Mr Findlay.
On the first point, I have no knowledge of Police Scotland having certain individuals under surveillance. If Mr Findlay has concerns about that, he could pursue it with Police Scotland. If he is dissatisfied with that, he could take it up with IOCCO—the surveillance commissioner—which would be able to look at the matter.
In relation to having a debate on those and wider issues, I should point out to Mr Findlay that, in a 17-minute speech on Tuesday, the leader of his party made absolutely no mention of policing whatsoever. In his closing speech yesterday, Iain Gray, too, made absolutely no mention of policing. They raised not one single point about policing. [Interruption.]
Order.
Given that the Labour Party has time for business next week—[Interruption.]
Order. Stop the heckling.
If the Labour Party wishes to have a debate on policing, it is free to do so in its debating time next week.
That ends the statement by the cabinet secretary on policing.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The ministerial statement that we have just heard covered eight distinct and important areas of concern about Police Scotland. I welcome the statement and the fact that time was extended to allow as many members as possible to ask questions. Nevertheless, our Parliament cannot possibly do justice to the matters that have been outlined in such a constrained format. Since Police Scotland was set up, the Government has not once used its debating time to discuss or review the impacts of reform. It is pertinent today to reflect on that.
Presiding Officer, I ask you to ensure that the Government’s business manager has every opportunity to bring forward, as soon as possible, a debate in Government time on the important matters that the cabinet secretary has raised today.
I thank Alison McInnes for giving advance notice of her point of order. As she is aware, it is not for the Presiding Officer to determine the business programme; it is for the Parliamentary Bureau to recommend the business programme. I suggest that, as a business manager, she raise the issue directly in the bureau.
Previous
Sewage Sludge Spreading