 Rwyf i'n ffordd i'i gynhyrch i deall, mae'r bwysig yn ddefnyddio i ddebitiau o'r Ff1 5085 yw ym mhwn ffinlay gyda chi Mae Ff1 5085, yn y bwysig i fynd i'r bwysig i'r bwysig i'r Ff1 5085. Diolch yn fwy o ddod i fynd i ff1 i ddebitiau i'r bwysig i fynd i'r bwysig i ff1. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request speak buttons now or as soon as possible and now that everyone has left the chamber, I call on Mr Finlay to open the debate. Mr Finlay, seven minutes are thereby please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. This debate follows a theme of members' debates that are issues that I have brought before this Parliament. That is the theme of class justice or more accurately injustice. I want to thank members from across the Parliament for supporting the motion and allowing the debate to take place. The issue raised today, I think, gets to the heart of the principles of their criminal justice system. It asks a key question. Do we have a policing system in this country and a justice system that treats everyone the same, irrespective of your class, your status, your colour, religion or your political persuasion? Or do we have one that picks out individuals and groups for special treatment because they challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, the established order or threaten, even in a tiny way, the grip that those in positions of power have on our economy and our society? If we look over my very young lifetime, we can see numerous instances where vested interests in the media, in big business, government, the police and the courts have worked together to quash dissent, control people's behaviour and prevent any challenge to their grip on power. That has been done through anti-trade union legislation, court reform, anti-terror legislation and much, much more. If we look at cases like those of the Shrewsbury 24, the Camel Lair 37, the 96 Hillsborough fans, the ordinary victims of phone hacking, not the celebrities, the family of Stephen Lawrence, the 95 miners arrested at Orgreave, the 300 Scottish miners arrested at Ravenscraig, the 4,000 blacklisted construction workers, 400 of them. Scottish, we can see the state machine conspiring with powerful interests against ordinary working people whose only crime is to defend their jobs, communities, support their fellow workers or even support their football team. I suspect that, in all those cases and many more, undercover police officers have been operating with the freedom to do whatever they want, with little control, little accountability or outwith any ethical framework in which they should be carrying out their activities. All of that is apparently sanctioned by senior officers in the area in which they were operating, and that includes Scotland. Am I interested in those stems from my work on blacklistening? We know that the security forces have been involved in political and industrial campaigns going back to the suffragettes and beyond. In this case, what we had was special branch work in hand and glove with the consultant association, not to prevent terrorism or potential threats to life but to infiltrate legitimate democratic trade unions and in collaboration with big construction companies to deny people the right to work. We now know that at least 120 undercover officers have been deployed by the Special Demonstration Squad since its formation in 1968, but so far only 12 have been exposed, half of whom worked in Scotland. The most infamous being Mark Kennedy, deployed here 14 times in his seven-year career. We know now that they targeted Scottish workers and environmental activists who campaigned at the G8 in Gleneagles, one of whom now works for an SNP MP. They targeted trade union officials. They targeted at least 10 Labour MPs, including the now leader of the Labour Party. They did not gather evidence for use in court. They amassed intelligence so that people could be monitored, anticipated and disrupted. Those people acted as a law unto themselves. An internal MET report from 2009 says that they preferred the less bureaucratic approach and directed their operational activity without intrusive senior supervision and management. The SDS directed its own operations with significant tactical latitude and minimal organisational constraints. That is code for what they did, whatever they like. Their tactics were truly abhorrent. The majority of known officers had long-lasting and intimate relationships with people that they spied upon, three officers engaged in relationships with women in Scotland. That was all part of the strategy. More than one had a child to a woman whilst pretending to be someone else. One victim described it and I quote as being like a rape by the state. That is the police in our country operating like that. It is outrageous. Officers acted as asian provocateurs, encouraging activists into confrontations and taking key roles in the organisation of events. Kennedy was the transport co-ordinator for the protests at the G8. Jason Bishop and Marco Jacobs drove vanloads of activists up from England. Another officer, Lynn Watson, was also at the G8 as part of the action medical team. Often officers have since received convictions under their false identity, withholding evidence during court cases, evidence that undermined those very court cases. In any other circumstances this would be perjury in perverting the course of justice. We have now found out that more than 50 convictions have been quash since this scandal came to light. What kind of false identity did they take up? For some of them, it was the identity of a dead child. This is the police. Police officers operate in our country under the identity of a dead child to victimise people whose only crime is to want a fairer, cleaner and more just society. I do not know about you, but I find that nauseating and utterly corrupt. In response to this being exposed, the UK Government has commissioned the pitchford inquiry and I commend Theresa May on doing so. That has a remit to inquire into and report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces in England and Wales since 1968. Pitchford does not cover Scotland. When I asked the cabinet secretary last year if police were spying on trade union, environmental and political activists in his party and mine, he said, and I quote, I have no idea. This was both astonishing in both its arrogance and its complacency. Then, on the day of the recess, as we all went off for Christmas, he slipped out a letter to the 10 MSPs who had written to him, stating that he now wants pitchford extended to look at the operations that happened in Scotland. Police officers committed a string of human rights abuses against Scottish citizens on Scottish soil. We do not know what arrangements they had with Scottish police forces. We do not know if that arrangement happened in other force areas. Nor do we know which campaigns they infiltrated. We do not know which Scots they spied upon. We do not know how many of our citizens were affected. If that was happening elsewhere, there would be condemnation all round. However, it has happened under our noses. The cabinet secretary has not appeared for the debate. I find that sad that he has not on such an important issue, but maybe the minister can confirm that if the Home Secretary refuses to extend the remit of pitchford to Scotland, then will the cabinet secretary instruct a similar judge-led inquiry here? I am well over time. There is so much more I want to say in this matter, but time does not allow it. However, this is a scandal. This is on the front to our democracy. We have to expose what went on here in Scotland. We must ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. We are tight for time. We will probably have to extend. In the meantime, I will call on Joanne Lamont to be followed by Rod Campbell—four minutes or thereby, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I commend Neil Findlay on securing this important debate and, indeed, on his passionate speech, arguing for transparency in Scotland in relation to the role of the police. I only wanted to make a brief contribution. I instinctively support the police. I recognise the role in keeping our communities safe. In the past, I have been active both in ensuring that the police address issues such as domestic violence, violence against women and anti-social behaviour. I do not come likely to a position that recognises that there is a problem here in relation to policing. However, I do not think that we can overstate the significance of the revelations about the conduct of the police over a long period of time, the impact and the confidence in the police and the rights of justice for victims of behaviour that is hard to believe in its audacity and its cruel disregard for those it affected. I just want to add my comment on why I think that those issues matter and why the aims of the motion matter and why I think that we are entitled to ask the Scottish Government what they are planning to do. Just before Christmas, I had the privilege of attending an event that hosted representatives from the Orgrief Truth and Justice campaign. Those were amazing women outlining their campaign to secure justice for minors and mining communities who were treated disgracefully at Orgrief during the miners' dispute in the 80s. The campaign emphasises the need for truth and justice. They need to know exactly what happened, who gave sanction to what happened and justice for those who were attacked and maligned. They spoke particularly powerfully of those who went to their graves unable to clear their names from the attacks that were made upon them. I recall the miners' dispute in the 80s as a difficult time, a hard time but also a time of solidarity, of community, of the kindness of those who sought to support those who were striking to save their industry. We also know now that it was a time when the state moved against a group of workers in an unbelievable and brutal way. At the time on the TVs, we were shown pitch battles, reports of attacks, arrests and miners with commentary on their violence, but the role of the police in those actions and events, while there were rumours about their behaviour, were not properly understood, reported or addressed. It is to our shame, I believe, that miners were so badly treated and their actions misrepresented. At the meeting, the Orgrif campaign has highlighted the significance of the impact of what happened in Hillsborough in changing attitudes and opening people's minds to the possibility that the rumours of corrupt behaviour by the police could be true. They believe strongly that because of the expose of the disgraceful behaviour of the police in Hillsborough has created an opportunity for the Orgrif justice and truth campaign to secure their aims, because it means that there is a recognition that some of those rumours were not just wild imaginings but were actually true. We have to salute those women for making that progress, salute those who took on the might of the press and the police in Hillsborough, but recognise that there remains a challenge here for us too. Why does this campaign matter? Such actions by the police, once seen as being inconceivable, are now laid bare. It is essential that in Scotland we understand properly what has been done in our name by the police, who made the decisions to allow those actions to happen and when will those people be held to account. If pictures can be extended, then fine, but I do think that there is a question about what we explore and understand about what the police have done in Scotland to innocent victims in Scotland in order to understand possibly what we need to address in terms of policing to make sure again that our communities can have full confidence in them. That is not about an attack on the role of the police in our community and in our society but is to support the rights of people to ensure that we have a policing regime that is opened up that people can have confidence in. I do hope that the minister will give reassurance that if pictures was not to be extended, that he will do all that he can to make sure that that inquiry is conducted in Scotland. I think that the people of Scotland would expect nothing less. Presiding Officer, may I begin by recognising the commitment of Neil Findlay to this issue? It is fair to say that the member sometimes pursues a lonely or sometimes unpopular furrow, but certainly on this issue he has highlighted a legitimate area of public concern. We know, of course, that the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005 was a focus for spying on activists and that spying seemed to involve divisions or organisations with a relationship to the Metropolitan Police, an organisation whose chief constable directly reports to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary. Given those allegations and the fact that we already know that the Metropolitan Police has apologised to women who may have been befriended by undercover operations and, indeed, the other allegations unearthed by the Ellison review into circumstances surrounding the investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder, I believe that it is right that the Home Secretary has instigated a judicial inquiry and she should be commended for it. An inquiry, as Mr Findlay's motion makes clear, however, is currently restricted to England and Wales. But if Metropolitan Police officers or their divisions were operating in Scotland, it seems sensible to extend that remit to Scotland, and I await with interest to hear the minister's comments on the Government's request to the Home Secretary on this point. The pitch-figured inquiry, it seems, will extend well beyond the G8. It will involve campaigners on behalf of Stephen Lawrence, as I have already said, and we know that it is alleged that Labour MPs, trade unionists and anti-racism groups were also targeted. The extent to which there is a Scottish dimension to this remains to be seen, but if there is credible evidence of this, than I said to Mr Findlay and others, then that evidence should be presented, and it is something that the Government should take on board. There are several court cases. There is a child that has been produced. There is evidence from other campaigns. For example, Dame Stella Rimmington, who became head of MI5, was on picket lines during the minor strike not two miles from my house. There is extensive evidence of operations occurring in Scotland. I hope that the member would agree with me that, if the pitch-figured inquiry is not extended to Scotland, I hope that he would support us having our inquiry here. I hear what the member says, and I reiterate my point about presenting that evidence, but if he lets me finish my speech, he will hear what I have to say. In relation to what I understand to be 57 convictions that have been quashed to date, however, I am not aware that any such convictions were obtained in a Scottish Corp, but it is clearly unacceptable in any democracy where the rule of law is sacrosanct for evidence to be obtained as a result of duplicity on the part of offices of the state saving carefully monitored circumstances. One of the problems, of course, as I understand it, was because the now defunct national public order intelligence unit was engaged in intelligence gathering, and the judiciary did not have the opportunity of reviewing any authorising officer's decision, rationale and justification for deployment because it was classed as intelligence rather than evidence gathering. Procedures have now changed, organisations have changed and there is now an agreed set of operating procedures, and of course we now have a covert human intelligence sources code of practice, brought in as a result of the regulation of investigations past Scotland Act 2000. Things have moved on and as a result of the HMIC report of 2012 there is now a tighter governance, what is a rather unfortunately called domestic extremism. We know of course something about the activities of Mr Kennedy which formed the background to the 2012 report. What we don't know is how other undercover policing has been operating. Pitchford intends to go back to 1968 to the start of the special operations squad or, as it became known, SDS. It's possible that evidence will be uncovered that relates to activity in Scotland since 1968. Today, I'm not aware of any reports which, in some way or other, apart from the matters that Mr Finlay has referred to, don't relate to the Metropolitan Police. In the absence of that evidence it seems hard to justify the need for a Scotland only inquiry. However, in the interests of openness and transparency, I believe that the Scottish Government should be open to that possibility, should it arise, and should keep an open mind on the need for an independent Scottish inquiry. I believe that Mr Finlay was right to raise the issue. Would you have to see how matters develop? Of the 10 MSPs who signed the letter referred to by my colleague Neil Finlay, I'm pleased to be participating in the debate tonight, and I commend Neil Finlay on securing the debate into issues that involve an abusive woman, which is quite difficult to comprehend. When we look at the demand for the Pitchford inquiry to be extended to Scotland, that should never have been a controversial demand in any case. The police have already admitted wrongdoing, and they have apologised for the damage done to women who have been abused and manipulated as a result of undercover officers starting intimate relationships with them. Further, there has been record compensation pay-outs to women victims as a result of those officers' conduct, but the inquiry, as it stands, will be limited to police activity in England and Wales. The campaign opposing police surveillance, the group investigating the role of undercover police, has documented numerous instances where officers have been proven to have committed acts of abuse were operating and active in Scotland. There can be no doubt about that, and I'm astonished that some members in the chamber still seem to be doubting and questioning that. Despite the apology from the Metropolitan Police about the undercover operations, there is still a lot more to be investigated and revealed about the extent to which those officers were active in Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK—not whether they were, but the extent to which they were. One of the cases in England where undercover officers were found to be active in potentially perverting the coast of justice, which has been mentioned previously, was the Stephen Lawrence murder case. An investigation into that case determined that the Metropolitan Police were institutionally racist. As a result of that inquiry, steps were taken to address the problem, and although there is still some way to go, improvements were made. If we look at the frequent pattern of male officers abusing their position to exploit women and start sexual relationships and the implied approval that that would require from senior officers, the question is whether or not the police in that regard are institutionally sexist. I think that we urgently need a full and comprehensive inquiry into the role of undercover police in Scotland to discuss whether the issue of sexism and abuse of women can be openly and honestly addressed. I would prefer an inquiry in Scotland. If we have that inquiry, perhaps the doubt in Thomas's can get the concrete evidence, which is there, and it can be put in front of their eyes. The personal experience of the women who were effectively victims of the police makes for very disturbing and distressing reading. I will not mention individual cases, but in general the victims began relationships with undercover officers. They often speak about how they genuinely felt in love with these men, sharing every aspect of their lives, personal and physical. Officers would attend family functions and even funerals of the victims' family members. Astonishingly, as Neil Findlay pointed out, in some instances, children were conceived and born by undercover officers who never revealed who they really were. When those officers were extracted or extracted themselves from the operations, they would suddenly disappear, at short notice, from the women's and their own children's lives under fabricated excuses. They left broken homes and caused huge amounts of distress and heartbreak. That is the real story here. When it was finally revealed to those women that the men were undercover officers, there was untold psychological damage done to the women. Their whole lives were turned upside down by those revelations. One woman speaks of having been in a relationship with a ghost when she now looks back on the time that she spent with him and never really known who she actually was. Those women's trust and confidence has been shattered. It has left them feeling humiliated, demeaned and violated. While the victims have stated that no apology or compensation can make up for the abuse that they have suffered, we ought to fully investigate and expose those horrific practices. If we do not fully investigate the role of undercover police in Scotland, we will not only be letting those women down further, but we will potentially be risking the health and wellbeing of other women in the future. We must lend the lessons of those known cases to have any chance of stopping future abuse. Pitchford inquiry should be extended to cover Scotland, but if that is not agreed, then the Scottish Government has a moral duty to undertake its own inquiry into this horrendous practice and provide truth and justice. I have just let the chamber know that, due to the number of members wishing to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3, where the debate will be extended by up to 30 minutes. Mr Findlay, if you would move such a motion. Thank you very much. Are we all agreed? The question is, will we extend? We are all agreed. Thank you very much. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Dr Elaine Murray. Four minutes are thereby, Ms Mitchell. I thank Neil Findlay for bringing this debate to the chamber, as it provides the opportunity to explore some compelling issues relating to undercover police operations. The motion refers to the inquiry set up by the UK Government and led by Lord Justice Pitchford. His terms of reference, announced by Home Secretary Theresa May on 16 July 2015, are to inquire into the report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Wales police forces in England and Wales since 1968. For the purpose of the inquiry, undercover police operations means the use of a police force of a police officer as a covert human intelligence source within the meaning of section 268 of the Regulation, Investigatory Powers Act 2000, whether before or after the commencement of that act. The terms undercover police officer, undercover policing, undercover police activity should be understood accordingly and includes operations conducted through online media. The inquiry was set up in response to the concerns about the activities and conduct of undercover officers operating within the national public order intelligence unit and the SDS, the special demonstration squad. We have established that anyone, including Scottish residents, affected by the activities of undercover officers is entitled to submit evidence. It will then be for the inquiry chairman and the council to the inquiry to review the evidence and decide on its admissibility. I also note the request to extend the inquiry's remit to include Scotland. By way of background, the SDS was formed in 1968 and based inside the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, which focuses on national security. At a time of terrorist threats and heightened security, there clearly remains a requirement for undercover officers. However, it is the revelations about the activities of certain undercover officers, which has prompted the inquiry, which covers three broad areas. The first establishes what happened, the motivation for, the scope of, the undercover police activities in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general, and the role and the contribution undercover of policing makes towards prevention and detection of crime. The second investigates systems and procedures, governance and oversight of undercover policing and the adequacy of justification or authorisation. It covers the selection, training, management and care of undercover police officers and the statutory policy and judicial regulation of undercover policing and will explore the state of awareness of undercover policing within HM Government. The third looks to the future and will take evidence from a variety of witnesses, including expert witnesses, about the future of undercover policing and associated matters with a view to informing recommendations. The estimated publication date of a written report and recommendations is summer 2018. That is clearly therefore a thorough and meticulous inquiry. While I have sympathy with the intent behind Neil Findlay's call for a Scottish inquiry, I consider that to be premature, especially given the ability of those residing in Scotland to submit evidence to the pitchford inquiry and the request to extend the remit to Scotland. Undercover police officers, if I have time, I am on my four minutes. The comment that she makes is fine, but it does not extend to operations in Scotland, that is the problem. It can supply evidence, but it does not investigate what happened in Scotland. That is the issue. Yes, I understand that. That is where we are looking at the admissibility, how that will be treated and how that will affect the inquiry and perhaps lead to a decision to extend the inquiry. Those are all things that are unknowns just now, but will be explored and decided as the inquiry progresses. Undercover police officers hold a position of privilege and carry out duties essential to the safety and security of the public. It is deeply concerning that some undercover officers have straits so far outside the framework within which they were authorized to operate. If, therefore, the findings of the inquiry prove to be unsatisfactory in relation to the activities that occurred in Scotland, particularly at the G8 summit in Glen Eagle, the matter could and should be reconsidered. In the meantime, at the very least, I would expect, is Police Scotland to monitor closely developments in England and Wales with a view to looking or taking on board any lessons learned from this process. Thank you so much. I know Colin, Dr Elaine Murray, to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, congratulate Neil Findlay for bringing this important matter to the chamber for a debate this evening. I am not surprised to learn for reasons which I will elaborate on shortly that undercover police operations were being conducted by police forces in England since 1968. What shocks me, however, is that these operations were still on-going in the 21st century and that they have been happening in Scotland. The reason why I am not surprised is that I, a long time back, 37 years ago, almost observed an undercover agent at work when I lived and worked in the south of England when I was there between 1976 and 1989. As people of my vintage may remember, at the end of the 1970s, the national front emerged as a significant political threat in parts of England and stood many candidates at the general and council elections in 1979. The anti-Nazi league of which I was a member, I was also a young and idealistic member of the SWP at the time, was set up in 1977 in opposition to the rise of the NF and regularly demonstrated against NF marches and meetings. On 21 April 1979, the national front marched through the streets of Leicester where they were hopeful of electoral success both in the general election and the local elections, which coincided with it. The anti-Nazi league was its habitat range at counter-demonstration. That was the day before Blair Peach was killed by an officer of the Met at a similar demonstration in Southall. After what I saw in Leicester, I was not surprised that somebody had lost their life. Apart from being hit by a brick that may have been thrown by somebody on our own side with poor aim, although the story on the bus that brought you drinks was thrown by somebody else, I still have a vivid recollection of one man. So vivid, in fact, I could almost now still describe what this man looked like. He was casually dressed, he was towards but not at the front of a large group of demonstrators and he was very vocal. He was shouting encouragement to the demonstrators, telling them to attack the police and try to reach the national front marches. Of course, under the circumstances, tempers flared, the demonstrators attacked and were subsequently pursued by police dogs and horses. Now, as my left arm was by this point in a sling formed from a comrade's belt, I wished to avoid further injury, I hung back from the crowd to observe what was happening. As the dogs and horses dispersed the demonstrators and the police arrested those that they could get hold of, the man that had been doing all the shouting gradually retreated further and further back in the crowd and eventually out of it. Then he calmly got into the front of a police van. Not in the back, he wasn't in cuffs, he voluntarily got in the front. He was clearly an undercover officer and indeed an agile provocateur and I actually tried to shout out to people to see what he was but under all the noise and so on it was going on at the time nobody could really hear what anyone was saying. But I wasn't actually surprised by that back then because the police in England actually had a bad reputation as far as people on the left of politics were concerned. As has already been alluded to by Johann Lamont, most of us will remember the scenes from the miners' strike in 1984 and it certainly wasn't just Mrs Thatcher who believed that the left and trade unions were the enemy within at that time. However, it does appall me that spying and undercovering activity has been on-going in Scotland and that only 10 years ago environmental activists wishing to make their views known. We know that and I think what she's told us is really helpful in her experience. But when we see senior people from the security services who went on to very high levels, the director general of MI5 having been on picket lines in Scotland, surely that tells us that these operations were extensive here at that time? That certainly raises a large number of questions as to what was going on. In fact, it was as recent as it actually shocks me that people, not terrorists but environmentalists, were being treated as if they were enemies of the state. Worse of all, female activists were being deceived into sexual and emotional relationships with undercover agents. I feel that that is a terrible violation of their human rights and they could be considered to have been raped as they thought they were having sexual relationships with somebody very different. I wonder if the prosecution of the agents involved could be considered. I'm sure that the vast majority of police officers serving in Scotland will be as outraged by those activities as we are. We don't only owe it to the victims of these undercover police spies to get to the truth of what happened here in Scotland. We also owe it to the thousands and thousands of hard-working police officers who are filling their duties to keep us safe, working day in, day out to look after their communities, because that could stain them by association if the truth remains unexposed. I hope that the Scottish Government agrees with me on that. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Neil Findlay on securing this debate. The issue is something that he has pursued with vigor. From the outset, I hope that we can all agree that the issue that we are discussing today is an extremely important one. The allegations that have been made against the police officers in question are serious. We've heard them earlier, using the identities of dead children for their cover without discussing this with their parents, spying on the parents of a teenager viciously attacked and stabbed by a group of youth in a racially motivated attack, and engaging in sexual relations with female environmental and political activists, and in some cases forming long-term relationships and fathering children. The revelations have resulted in serious emotional trauma for those duped by the officers. The Professor of Criminology, Ian Loeder, has written in a quote that every police-public interaction is a teachable moment, an occasion in which something is necessarily communicated about the law and the legal authorities and what they stand for. That something can have fateful either positive or negative consequences for people's future willingness to trust and co-operate with the police, and for whether they think of the law as worthy of their compliance because it represents moral values that they share. The police-public interaction in those circumstances has shocked us all. It is the kind of behaviour that transgresses professional and moral boundaries and flies in the face of common decency. It is in fact the kind of behaviour that threatens the very legitimacy of policing. We know that undercover officers were also allowed to operate in Scotland. For example, we have heard of reports that the infiltrated protesters at the G8 summit at Gleneagles. Even if the officers were from police forces in England and Wales, it appears that authorisation to work in Scotland came from senior Scottish officers. That is why I support the call for the Scottish Government to hold a similar inquiry. The Scottish Government has acknowledged that it is supportive of widening the pitchford inquiry to include activities in Scotland, but does not believe that there should be a separate Scottish inquiry. Well, the terms of reference of the pitchford inquiry have been established and its work has already begun. It is unfortunate that the remit does not include the activities of undercover officers in Scotland, but I suspect that it is unlikely to change its remit now. Unless the SNP Government is arguing that unearthing what has gone on in Scotland, both in terms of English officers operating here and of undercover policing within Scottish forces, is of no importance, there needs to be an inquiry here in Scotland, otherwise Scottish people will be shortchanged. We too deserve to know the scale of the operations carried out and the lines of accountability and authorisation. We have certainly no room for complacency given the recent revelation about Police Scotland spying and breaches of interception of communication orders. Citizens are entitled to expect the highest standards of policing and rightly expect that there should be clear justification and authorisation of any clandestine policing. Equally, those officers who are engaged in undercover policing should be carefully regulated, trained and regularly assessed. Can we guarantee that that has always been in place in Scotland? Is it in place now? We do not know. That is why an open and unflinching examination of the extent of undercover policing, past and present, and its governance and oversight here in Scotland, is necessary to learn lessons and establish clear terms of engagement, and I support Neil Findlay's motion. I want to congratulate Neil Findlay not only for bringing this motion for debate here in the Parliament, but also for his not just passionate but comprehensive and analytical setting out of what, frankly, is a horrific catalogue of abuse by the state in this country. It is unacceptable. Frankly, if we in our complacency tolerate it or refuse to properly investigate it, we are also complicit with it. We are not just to ourselves, to those that we represent, but to future generations to know that living in a democracy means that there are safeguards, that there is protection and that there are rules that everyone must follow. I was watching the minister during Neil Findlay's contribution and he appeared to be surprised, maybe a bit cynical, about Neil Findlay's comment that one of the victims is now working for an SNP parliamentarian. I think that it would be well worth the minister finding out who that is, speaking to that individual, because she has a wealth of knowledge and if he won't accept what Neil Findlay and others are saying, at the very least speaking to her, would help matters. I take the member's points. However, my disbelief was the nature of the openness with which such matters are being discussed in a member's debate in this Parliament. I appreciate the sensitivity of the subject and the importance of it to Mr Findlay and other members across the chamber. However, I was concerned about being careful that we are not naming people inappropriately, but we have no opportunity to defend ourselves in this place. Mr Henry. Can I just finish this point? If you still need to come in, then you can. That individual openly came to a meeting in the Parliament, organised by an MSP, publicly contributed to the discussion and to the debate, has no problem in being identified. I don't think that there are any confidances being betrayed or that there is any airing on the wrong side. Not just now, thank you. I want to make some progress. Margaret Mitchell made the point, and I welcome some of the comments made by Margaret Mitchell, but Alison McInnes touched on the fundamental issue here. It is not just about providing additional information to pitchford. It is not just about saying, look, here are some things in Scotland that we would like you to look at. Because the terms of reference have already been established, there is a limit to what that inquiry can do. I welcome the belated action by the Scottish Government to write to ask for the inquiry to be extended, but unless we get a guarantee that it will be comprehensive, it will be all-encompassing and that the terms of reference will also include things that have gone on in Scotland over the years to make it a genuine UK inquiry. There, unless that is done, we are being shortchanged and therefore we will need our own inquiry. Some of the things that have been touched on, as I said before, are frankly unacceptable in a democracy and we need to do something about that. The new chief constable of Police Scotland has an ideal opportunity, coming in fresh to the job to work with Scottish ministers to look at what has been going on. He is uniquely qualified in some respects because part of his responsibility when he worked in England was for special branch and for those that special branch worked with for the units that Neil Findlay and others mentioned. I do not know if those who are interviewing the new chief constable ask them about those activities or ask them for any assurances and guarantees, but what they, the least now, should do as the accountable body for the police along with the ministers is tap in to the new chief constable's knowledge to find out what he knows about unacceptable things that are going on here so that that can help to shape any terms of reference for what might happen here. Johann Lamont was right to say that we need to know what was done. No thanks, I need to make some time. It is not just some of the things that historically Neil Findlay mentioned that I and others were involved in. In the recent referendum, were any of those people involved in either side of the referendum, either in provoking votes for yes or for no and trying to inflame matters, because if they get involved, not in issues of national security, and Johann Lamont is right, we support the police, but many police officers are disturbed by some of the things that go on because this is not about national security. This is about protecting the interests of big business or the interests of certain political views. Were any of those people involved in the referendum campaign, we should be told whether people were trying to stir things up in a way that Elaine Murray mentioned earlier on. This is the one opportunity that we have to put things right. We know that wrong has been done over many years in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we fail to take the opportunity now to get to the bottom of what was done and put things right, then we are letting Scotland down, future generations down, but we are also letting ourselves down as individuals. I congratulate Neil Findlay, not just for the motion but for his tenacity. As others have said, in relation to a number of issues, Neil, like many in here, wishes to protect hard-fought-for-workers rights, he wishes to protect the right to peaceful protest, and, like many, he is concerned that the full force of the state was visited on the minor strike and all the challenges that brought. I would like to qualify something that Mr Findlay said. He said that this is the police. I would say that this is an attack on the police by the state. As many will know, I was a police officer for 30 years. The sworn duty was to guard, watch and patrol to protect life and property. Uniformed officers play an important visible reassurance to the public with that. There is a role for plainclothes officers clearly, and there is an important role also on occasions for undercover officers, but all to reassure and protect the public, of course. Neil Findlay? I would like me to clarify that. The police who I know in my community, many of them, have done a fantastic job in a very good work in relation to them. This is the type of thing that undermines confidence in the police, and I am sure that the officers that you served with would be as appalled by this as I am. John Finnie? Indeed, they are, and you need to only go to my Facebook page to see that. I have to say that my experience is that officers were entirely well motivated, and it was to catch the bad guys. It is important that it was the courts who decided who the bad guys were, and the problems that have associated itself with it. Various constabories have come when the police have wanted to act as judge and jury. There are issues about the security services. I have raised them in the committee. I have to say that I have had some astonishing responses to that. I cannot envisage any officer returning home from work to explain that they had infiltrated a legitimate protest group to say that they had relations. It is important to use the words that the woman used that she felt she had been raped by the state. I think that that is the level of language that is appropriate in this instance, and the disgusting thing of taking the identity of a dead child. Officers that I served with were appalled by that sitting behaviour. The worrying thing is that that is not a rogue individual. That must have been known to supervisors. They did one of two things. They either ignored it or they are unaware of it. Either way, they were negligent. Indeed, we have one in our midst in the form of our new chief constable. People will be aware of the coverage of that. Certainly having a responsibility—Mr Henry quite rightly points out having a responsibility, a supervisory responsibility for the avoidance of some of the smiling that is going on—a supervisory responsibility in a role of special branch that is inconceivable that there would not have some knowledge that he could share. I am surprised that, given that Mr Campbell shares a membership of the Justice Committee with me, things have moved on. As my colleague Alison McInnes has said, we at the moment are dealing with concerns. Deep hell public concerns about intrusion of privacy. The motion talks about the opportunity that is afforded to victims in England and Wales. What about victims in Scotland? I will not go into the G8 protests, but to assume that the monitoring that went on across Europe suddenly stopped at Gretna is naive, blissfully naive. It either continued or was handed on one way or another. It certainly took place. I attended G8 in a capacity of looking after the welfare of officers, but it is also true to say that there are some nasty folk out there and there are some nasty folk that need looked after. However, there are legitimate ways that that is done, and it is about the supervisory and the scruturising that needs to go on. I have to tell you that I am surprised and deeply disappointed by the Scottish Government's response to this. I am surprised and disappointed by my colleague's response to this. I am sure that there are many compelling meetings elsewhere in the building tonight, but if that is the level of interest, it is disappointing. I think that people would perhaps expect a greater level of interest. Scotland has a separate legal system and a separate police system, and the power of Constable, of someone to act in the power of Constable Scotland, is something that should be absolutely richly regarded and held in some esteem. Uniquely, the Scottish Government seemed keen to cede any involvement in this, belatedly, to the UK Government. I find that strange to allow control, to allow UK intrusion, if you like, to invite a Tory-inspired inquiry to deal with something that clearly there is evidence that should give rise to. It is simply not good enough. Pernicious forces were at work. I fear that they may still be at work. I think that if the minister wants to provide reassurance, and I think that this is a very good time, given a new chief constable being in place, and given all the difficulties that we have had, the way to do that is not to try to piggyback, possibly in the knowledge that you are going to get a knockback anyway, not to piggyback in England and Wales, but to acknowledge that there are problems in Scotland and to address those problems by putting in place a proper inquiry. I am sure that you will get support across the chamber if you do that. I thank you. I thank you very much for taking the late bid. I was not intended to speak. I thought I would listen. I do not know too much about the background. I have been involved in various issues, particularly with working along with anti-racist groups, where we have had to report to the police and have been concerned with that. While I was intervening and you raised it yourself, Hugh Henry was the fact of perhaps the referendum and the minor strike. I have known Hugh Henry for a long number of years away back in the Renfrewshire Council days and the militant faction that I was involved in right enough. That was the reason that I wanted to intervene on Hugh Henry in that respect. However, there are some things that have concerned me in regard to that. John Finnie mentioned it there about the chief constable and the impression that, for some reason or another, those people are doing underhand things. That is why I was concerned about that, and that is why I raised it. I am very grateful for the member. I am not making any assertions about anything. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr Henry that there is an excellent opportunity afforded us by the arrival of a new chief constable who may have some knowledge to share that knowledge with us. That may well put a lot of our concerns to rest. I suspect that it will not, but it is an opportunity. I thank John Finnie for that. The word that was not used at all was May. I am not sticking up for anybody, but I am looking at the letter of the law, and I am looking at the subjudice and various other issues. If you use the letter May, say the word May, or as in here, it alleges, you can say those words, but some of the words that has been bandied about in this debate certainly has not. Sorry, Mr Finnie. You can come in if you want. I do not mind, but, if you let me finish on this particular point, the motion that you put in says allegedly, and it is absolutely fine, but other people have mentioned and not said allegedly or May. They have actually assumed, and the assumption from some of the contributions has been that those people knew about underhand things that were going on, and I could not be party to that, and I do not think that this Parliament could be party to either, but I am all for looking, I am all for an inquiry, and Hugh Henry and another one where I wanted to intervene as well, brought up one of the issues that I wanted to mention, and that was a referendum. Sorry, can I just finish on this point, because it obviously was set up in 1968, and that was under a Labour Government. Now, in 1968, then on to 1979, when we had our first referendum, I would be interested in seeing if we could get anything out of that as well, and that was one of the other reasons I wanted to intervene in Hugh Henry, so I am glad to be able to say that. If I may, can I take an intervention, Presiding Officer? Yes. I mean, I am genuinely curious to what she is actually referring to when she says that people in the debate have said things inappropriate. If you could pinpoint where that is, I would come back, if it was anything I said, to try and clarify that. Can we just endeavour to keep off issues that might be subject to say, but I do not feel that you necessarily need to respond to that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It certainly was not anything that, if I recollect, which Mr Finlay said, I am sure that we will look at the report and we will be able to see it there, but can I just reiterate the fact that I am all for an inquiry? I am all for whether it is extended from Westminster to Scotland where we have our own inquiry. I do not know what the minister is going to say, but I am all for an inquiry, because I wanted to find out that the report was set up in 1968. We had various things happening, the minor strike, anti-racism, Elaine Murray had mentioned the fact about the rise of the national front as well. Lots of things that I certainly had concerns about in regard of policing, and I would like answers as well. If I could just perhaps look at the timescale as well, 1968 is now disbanded. How far ahead would we be getting in this timescale? If we do ask them to look at it or we set up our own inquiry, will lots of things come out, I would hope, in regards to infotrators or MI5 or anything else, and not just what happened in 1968 or 1979 or 1980, but more up-to-date in fact in that respect. I thank you so much for indulging me coming in as a late-comer. I am sorry, I was just told that I am finished. Taking everybody today, one you go. I just wanted Sandra White to clarify that she does accept that apologies have been issued in compensation has been paid to women who were in this situation, and that is not getting into matters of subjudice. We are not mentioning the individual cases. Thank you very much. I recognise that, and that is not to do with the subjudice that I am talking about. I recognise that fact. The compensation has been paid out. What I mentioned was the fact that, if you look at the report, you can look at it, and I will have a look at it as well, but I certainly was a bit uncomfortable with some of the language that was used by some of the contributors. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speech from the minister. You have seven minutes or thereby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank members for their contributions in which I fully acknowledge that it is a very important, very sensitive subject. As members have outlined, the impacts on individuals are, in some cases, very significant indeed, and I fully acknowledge that potentially. That is the case. A number of very valid and constructive points have been made. I recognise and value the concern that people have expressed in the chamber about ensuring that legitimate protests can take place unmalested where they are complying with the law of the land and are entirely lawful. I think that it is a concern that we would all share if that has been subverted. I am sure that it will not have escaped members' attention that, while the Scottish Government is accountable to this Parliament for policing by Police Scotland, it is not the Scottish Government or, indeed, this Parliament's responsibility for the activities of metropolitan police service or its specialist units. I am not trying to get away from the nature of the importance of the issue, but I am stressing for the point of fact that the units are not accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the deputy mayor for policing and crime. If I can maybe just develop a point, I will bring in Mr Finlay. The deputy mayor for policing and crime, Stephen Greenhoff, who holds the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to account, and it is the Home Secretary who is responsible to the Westminster Parliament for policing in England and Wales and who, in March, announced the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing. I will bring in Mr Finlay. Thank you, minister. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary report in 2012 called a review of national police units which provide intelligence on activity associated with protest. That is the name of the report. Although Mark Kennedy worked for a national unit, his undercover activities were authorised, in bold, by senior officers from the police force area in which he was working. That clearly states that, if he was operating in Scotland, authorisation was given here. I appreciate that that is a statement that Mr Finlay has made there in relation to a point made by another individual, but I just want to point out that we are not aware of the evidence that Scottish officers have authorised. Indeed, that would be something that we would hope. Mr Finlay, I need to develop my point. Can I please finish the point, and I will bring in Mr Finlay? We are not aware of that. An English authorisation—respect, this addresses the point that Alison McInnes has also made in respect to the point about officers in those units being authorised by senior Scottish police. We are not aware of that, as I say. An English authorisation made, if I can use that term, made under RIPAA, not RIPSA, would most likely have been put in place in that scenario. So, I will bring in Mr Finlay now, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Finlay. He has been very good with his time. I received that response in a parliamentary answer from the minister. Can I refer the minister to this Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary report that he can find online and that the minister looks at this and assesses what has been said by the inspectorate and comes back to me and members of this Parliament with her response to that point because it clearly states within that report that the authority was given by senior officers in the area in which those people were operating. Now, there is a clear difference between what the minister is saying and what that report is saying. This Parliament has to know what the facts are on this. Will the minister come back on that? If I point out two things, Presiding Officer. One, I am not responsible for the answer that Mr Finlay refers to, that I believe would have been from the cabinet secretary rather than myself. However, the point that Mr Finlay is making is that there is no specific reference to Scotland. That is only the point that I am saying. I appreciate the point that Mr Finlay is making, but we do not yet know whether Scottish officers did authorise the operation. Indeed, that is what we would hope would be covered by the extension of the Pitchford inquiry to Scotland. I really need to make progress. I apologise to Ms Lamont. Can I make some further progress? Presiding Officer, will I have additional time? You have to decide, Mr Wheelhouse, whether you are taking the intervention or not. I am very short in time. I apologise to Ms Lamont. If I can, I will bring her back in as if I make some progress first, if I may. This is an important matter, so I do need to put stuff on the record. I trust that Mr Finlay is pursuing the Home Secretary and indeed the Mayor of London with a similar vigor as he has shown in his pursuit of this matter with the Scottish Government. That is not to be flippant, but it is a factor point again because the importance of the lines of accountability for the units that are affected by the point. I really must make progress, Presiding Officer. I apologise to members. I will try to bring them in later if I can make some progress. There is much of focus in Mr Finlay's speech on criticism of the Scottish Government, but I encourage Ms May to extend the inquiry to include Scotland in that. Notwithstanding that, if officers attach to those units— Presiding Officer, I wonder if you can help me out. We seem to be in a unique position where the Scottish Government, where there has been encroachment on their patch by the UK Government, and there for once saying that this has nothing to do with us, go and see Boris Johnson or go and see or whoever the Bloody Mary of London is these days. I mean, this is bizarre what is going on here today, Presiding Officer. I wonder if you can ask the minister to clarify. Mr Finlay, as you will know, that is not a point of order. The minister's words are a matter for him, not for me. I now invite the minister to continue. Thank you for raising the point of order, but it is not a point of order. Mr Wheelhouse, please continue. As I say, notwithstanding the point that I have just made, if officers attach to those units where active in Scotland and the inquiry has been set up specifically to look at related activity, then the inquiry should, we believe, strongly believe, be able to consider that activity irrespective of where it took place. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to the Home Secretary on 10 December last year asking her to confirm that the inquiry would be able to take account of any activity by the Metropolitan Police Units that took place in Scotland. To date, our informed Parliament, as of 10 to 5, when I came down to the chamber, we had not yet received any response from Ms May, but we are hopeful of a response, of course. I must never be complacent about those matters, and I recognise members' concerns. My own colleague Sandra White and Roderick Campbell, even in my own benches, have made the point that we are concerned about the nature of activities that might have been conducted in Scotland. Undercovering policing is a legitimate policing tactic, as Mr Finnie has said. I really must, Presiding Officer, progress in my comments if I may, but it can intrude in privacy and must always be subject to the most robust procedures and rigorous oversight to prevent the harms to individuals that members have referred to. It is our belief that the use of undercover officers by Scottish Police is very different to the allegations that have caused such concern and attracted so much media attention. Nevertheless, we have put in place measures to strengthen the control of undercover officer deployment. Presiding Officer, I have made clear that I have to make progress unless I have extra time. You can intervention if you want, because it is an extraordinary sort of evening, and we are allowing extra time. Thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer. When he says that the Scottish Police Act differently from what has happened here, that may be true, and I hope it is, but what evidence does the minister have of that? Mr Finnie would allow me to develop my speech, Presiding Officer. I am trying to establish the point that he is referring to, but I am not making reference to the allegations of medical and police unit. I am talking about undercover operations of Scottish Police in general in Scotland to address Mr Finnie's concern. Nevertheless, we have put in place measures, as I say, to strengthen the control of undercover officer deployment by Police Scotland, and I hope that that will be of some reassurance to Elaine Smith, Joanne Lamont and other colleagues who have stressed their support for Police Scotland. I very much welcome that and the general work that Police Scotland is doing, and rightly want to ensure that that is done with the appropriate standards. I will go on to set out why I believe that that is the case. That was our response to an HMIC report that made recommendations for police forces in England and Wales. We brought forward legislation that raised the rank at which authorisation may be made. We required all authorisations to be notified to the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, and we required all deployments to be approved by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners once they reach the 12-month stage. Furthermore, when the pitchford inquiry comes to make its recommendations, we will look very closely at those recommendations, and if there are sensible measures that we can take in Scotland, then, of course, we will do so. The deployment of undercover officers is an operational decision for Police Scotland, and I know that Police Scotland takes these sensitive matters very seriously. Police Scotland has a code of ethics that clearly sets out its core values of integrity, respect, fairness and the importance of human rights. It did the human rights elements of policing were built into the fabric of the service when the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act was passed in 2012, and every constable now makes a solemn declaration when appointed that they will, and I quote, uphold fundamental human rights. The covert human intelligence sources code of practice put in place, if I have further latitude. I think that we should really come to a conclusion, to be fair. Mr Wheelhouse, please would you include so. Apologies to Mr Finnie. The covert human intelligence sources code of practice put in place by this Parliament under the regulation of investigative powers Scotland Act 2000, which obviously was passed in the time of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Administration, also states that any Police Scotland officer deployed, and I quote, as a relevant source, the term used for undercover officers in Scotland will be required to comply with and uphold the principles and standards of professional behaviour set out in the Police Scotland's code of ethics. So we raised the bar in 2012, and the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, the independent judicially led body which oversees undercover policing activity by all UK forces, has extensive powers to address any issues that arise. To date, I understand, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners have not raised any issues with either Police Scotland or Scottish ministers. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by members during this debate, not least from my own colleagues but across the chamber, and the case made for a separate Scottish inquiry. But we believe, at this stage, it's important to press the Home Secretary to extend the inquiry to cover activities that may have taken place in Scotland. And that is the right way forward. Where police forces do not live up to the high standards expected of them, it is only right and proper that they should be held to account. But accountability has to be to the appropriate body. In the case that the allegations made to date, that accountability is clearly to the London mayor and to the UK Government. Well, I take Mr Finlay's point from a sedentary position. But, as I indicated previously, the Scottish Government does however believe there is a strong case for the Lord Justice Pitchford's inquiry to consider the activities of specific metropolitan police units in Scotland and we await the Home Secretary's response with interest. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Thank you all for taking part in this important debate. I now close this meeting of Parliament.