 Of topical questions. On a statement on the Chief Constable's Leave of Absence, would the members please press their request to speak buttons now? Thank you. On 8 September, the Scottish Police Authority agreed to a request from the chief constable to take a leave of absence while allegations against him are independently investigated by the police investigations and review commissioner. He issued a statement at that point to deny the allegations and signal his intention to return once the matter had been resolved. The perk is currently carrying out three investigations into allegations, which, after a preliminary assessment, she considered if proven would amount to gross misconduct. I will give Parliament as much information as I can this afternoon. However, this is still a live investigation and there are legal issues that I must respect. That will constrain information that can be provided. However, I welcome the opportunity to clarify the engagement that the Government had with the SPA on this matter. The SPA and other public bodies are often described as operating at arm's length from government. That means that they have a significant degree of independence within their statutory functions but operate within a policy framework set by ministers. The SPA, as a public body, is accountable to ministers for the exercise of its functions. Even though ministers do not normally become involved in individual decisions, the way the body carries out its functions must retain the confidence of ministers. Throughout the process, the Government has maintained the position that decisions are for the SPA as a body that has the statutory duty to consider complaints of misconduct against senior officers. At the same time, as a public body that is accountable to ministers, it is legitimate to seek assurances that the SPA is carrying out its functions in a way that is proportionate, accountable, transparent and consistent with the principles of good governance, as required by legislation. All the Government's actions have been focused on ensuring due process and fairness to all parties. The SPA is reviewing the chief constable's leave position on a four-weekly basis, with the first review on 5 October, resulting in a continuation of the leave arrangements. The position was due for review again in early November, and there was no indication from the SPA that there was likely to be any change at that point. I am clear that the onus was very much on the SPA to inform the Scottish Government if a change in circumstances was considered lightly. On 9 November, the then chair of the Scottish Police Authority, Andrew Flanagan, asked to meet me. At the meeting, he informed me that the SPA board had decided to invite the chief constable to resume his duties the following day. I understand that this decision was taken in a private session of the board on 7 November. There had been no indication that a return to duties was being considered at that point. When I met the former chair and learned of the board's decision, I sought assurances that they had followed due process. Unfortunately, he was unable to give me those assurances. Key parties had not been consulted. In particular, the PIRC had not been asked for her view on whether the chief constable's return at that point could impact on her investigations. As the commissioner highlighted in her letter to the public audit committee last week, the chief constable's leave of absence had allowed the PIRC to interview staff in a safe space, helping to minimise any concerns that might have had about being involved in the investigation. I am sure that Parliament will agree that it is difficult to understand how a decision could be made for the chief constable to return without first confirming that doing so would not undermine the independent PIRC investigation or the confidence of staff engaged in that process. Another area of particular concern was that there did not appear to be a robust plan in place to protect the wellbeing of officers and staff who had raised complaints or who may have been asked to play a role in the investigation. A number of officers and staff were based at the Tilly-Allan headquarters in close proximity to the chief constable and were in positions where they could expect to be dealing with the chief constable in the course of their work. That also raised questions about whether, and to what extent, those matters had formed part of the SPA's consideration of the issue. I would also highlight that Police Scotland's own senior command team had not been told about the decision even at the late stage. I took the view that the clear deficiencies in the process were completely unacceptable. I made clear to the former chair that I could not have confidence in a decision that had been reached without such significant issues having been properly addressed. The former chair agreed that, before proceeding further, the SPA would carry out more engagement with the relevant persons whom I welcomed. I also advised that they should consider seeking advice from HMICS on how they should proceed in terms of process. It is important to stress that throughout this period the Government was not informed that the former chief executive had already written to Mr Gormley to invite him to return. To those who wish to criticise my actions, I asked them to consider this. I had the chief constable returned to work on 10 November, and I then transpired that no consultation had taken place with any of the relevant interests, and further, that I had failed to ask any questions about that. I suspect that criticism would be harsher, and that no circumstances would have been justified. The SPA subsequently reconsidered the issue on 10 November and decided to continue the chief constable's leave and has continued to do so at subsequent reviews. The new chair has expressed concern about the decision making process around the board's previous decision, and has already taken steps to improve the board's decision making process, including the setting up of a complaints and conduct committee. The SPA is now engaging with the PICC and committed to ensuring issues relating to the welfare of officers and staff involved in investigations are fully consulted and considered. On 21 December, the chair said that he is committed to working tirelessly and at speed to address the shortcomings that have been identified and to ensure that in future the SPA's decision making processes and wider governance arrangements meet the standards that should be expected of a major public body. The police investigations and review commissioner has confirmed that the investigations are progressing, though we do not have a firm timescale for them being completed. It is in the interests of all parties that there is a thorough and effective investigation. I understand the Parliament's interests in this matter. The public audit and post-legislative scrutiny committee raised it with the relevant director general in the Scottish Government in an evidence session on unrelated matters on 21 December. The further information in the statement builds on the evidence provided in that session and the Government will write to the committee later in the week. However, members must remember that there is an on-going formal statutory complaints process, and I would caution against expecting the SPA or indeed Government to give a blow-by-blow account while the investigation continues. Public bodies need to be able to inspire not only confidence as parliamentarians, but also that of the wider public. The SPA is next due to review the chief constables leave on 25 January. Wherever decision it makes at that point, it is vital that it is based on a robust process that commands trust. I welcome the assurance that the SPA is given that it recognises the importance of that and looks forward to supporting it in whatever way we can. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. At the outset, I make no comment about the substance of complaints against the chief constable or whether he should or should not be permitted to return to work. The issue here is the cabinet secretary's interference, and it is difficult not to suggest hypocrisy. He has repeatedly stood in this chamber and, in response to problems that I have raised with the police service, responded that it is an operational matter. It seems that the test for whether Michael Matheson gets involved is not whether it is an operational matter but whether it is in the political interest of Michael Matheson. By way of reassurance, will he tell the chamber whether he took any legal advice prior to intervening in this matter? If so, when will he publish it, along with any correspondence between himself and the SPA? Given the fact that the investigation has been dragging on for months now, will he say anything to the hard work in police officers and staff about when their force will have certainty about the chief constable position again? I am disappointed by the tone of the member's question and what is a particularly important issue. As I said in my statement, the focus of my involvement in this matter was to ensure that there was a robust, defendable process in place for the decision-making that was made by the SPA in relation to the decision of the chief constable returning to his duties. It was very clear to me that, although a live investigation has been undertaken by the PICC and that it had not been consulted in this matter, we could not have confidence in that process. Additionally, the very fact that less than 24 hours before the chief constable was due to return to his duties, the command team in Police Scotland knew nothing about the decision that had been made by the SPA. Additionally, the fact that the SPA board had given no consideration to the welfare of those officers and staff who were involved in the complaints process, in my view, is simply unacceptable. To have stood by and allowed the SPA to implement that decision without asking them to revisit the decision and to consider those matters before they come to a decision on this matter, I believe, would not have been acceptable. That is why I asked them to reconsider it and they did so. It is about the process being robust and defendable, not the outcome of that process. In my view and in my assessment, it was very clear that the SPA had taken forward a process that was simply unacceptable and could not be defended. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by John Finnie. I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Policing in Scotland is in crisis. That is a crisis of governance, a crisis of leadership and a crisis involving investigations into senior officers. The actions of the cabinet secretary have turned that crisis into nothing short of a shambles. His intervention has effectively overturned the operational decision about the employment status of the chief constable. By doing that, he has not only embroiled himself in the shambles, he has authored its latest chapter. That decision in law is the independent SPAs to make, one that they made unanimously and then you turned following Michael Matheson's direct intervention. The intervention that the cabinet secretary should have made was to fix the governance, to sort the strategy, to get things moving back in the right direction, and he should have done that months ago at the start of last year when those issues became clear. Is it not now an unavoidable conclusion that the cabinet secretary has prejudiced any future decision regarding Phil Gormley's employment status and his ability to return to work? What is his response to the claim by the chief constable's lawyer that his intervention was unlawful? Finally, what confidence can the Scottish public have in the independence of the SPA if ministers can so simply and easily intervene in the decisions that they make? Let me deal with, first of all, in relation to this being an operational matter. This is not an operational decision making matter. This was about the process of the SPA in making a decision, a matter that clearly there is government interest in how that is being taken forward. The member contradicted himself by then going on and saying that we should be addressing issues of governance. That is exactly what this decision was about, was about the governance process that the SPA had put in place in arriving at the decision. If the member is serious and insane to me that I should have ignored the welfare of those officers and staff who are part of that complex process in this decision making process, I think that that is irresponsible on his part. I can assure the member that this was about making sure that we had a robust defendable position on how they had assessed the matter and the decision that they had come to. It was very clear in my assessment that that simply had not happened. That is unacceptable, not to consider the implications that it has to a live investigation, not to consider the implications that it has for the welfare of staff and officers and not to even engage with the senior command team within Police Scotland. Less than 24 hours before they were meant to implement the decision is simply, in my view, unacceptable. What would have been unacceptable from a ministerial point of view was to simply sit back and not ask them to address those matters. That is exactly what I did and the former chair agreed that they would go and consider. Once they complete a robust and defendable process in considering those issues, it is for them to make the decision on how they will move forward. However, it was clear to me that that was not the case when they presented the matter to me on 9 November. John Finnie is filled by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement. Cabinet secretary, I have zero confidence in the Scottish Police Authority's decision on 7 November and consider your comprehensive inquiries entirely appropriate. The commissioner used the phrase, a safe space, and you go on to talk about the absence of a robust plan to protect the wellbeing of officers and staff who have raised complaints or may be asked to play a role in the investigation. I think that it is very important that colleagues near understand the wider message that comes out from all these recent events and the conflicting messages that have been sent. Cabinet secretary, I want to ask you, and it is you that I want to ask. I do not want to ask Perk, I do not want to ask the Scottish Police Authority. It is appropriate that you, as cabinet secretary, say what steps you will take to provide on-going protection for the officers and staff who have courageously come forward with these complaints. I think that Mr Finnie, given his previous experience in policing, goes to the very heart of what is a key issue here and how that decision was arrived at. That is about the welfare of staff within the organisation who may be working in close proximity to the chief constable should he return. I saw through discussions with the new chair to ensure that the process that they have in place in making decisions relating to the matter includes one that is defendable and is robust. A key part of that is the welfare of officers and staff. The new chair has already given that commitment and has already set out their concerns about the process that was taken forward in arriving at the decision on 7 November. I can give the member an assurance, having discussed the matter specifically with the new chair. The public statements that have been made by the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority are that the issues relating to welfare will be a central consideration in making decisions about the on-going leave arrangements for the chief constable. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will do so in his own remarks, but I would ask members just to be careful when phrasing questions not to prejudge the outcomes of any investigations. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Alex Neil. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. Of course, the SNP Government created the centralised policing structure that we now have in Scotland, which puts a heavy onus on the relationships between the justice secretary, chief constable and SPA chair. Given that the sorry saga has dragged on now for months and we now have lawyers exchanging bloats, does the cabinet secretary believe that it would be possible for him to have a functioning working relationship where the chief constable will return in due course? In light of his earlier criticisms of the SPA board, which unanimously supported the return to work of Mr Gormley back in November, does he still have confidence in those members of the board who remain in place? In relation to the future decision of the SPA on the resatiation for the chief constable, it is very clear that it is not the outcome of that decision. It is the process that they go through in making that decision, which needs to be one that is robust and is also defendable. If they make a decision for the chief constable to be reinstated and they have a clear, robust and defendable process for making that decision, then I will accept that. In the discussions that I have had with the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority, it is to make sure that the governance process that they have in place for making decisions in relation to those matters is one that we can have confidence in. She has given me a commitment that they will ensure that that is the case. I made reference to the comments that she has made. The member will also be aware that I commissioned work by Malcolm Burr and Nicola Merchant to look at some aspects of governance and support to the board. That report is presently being considered by the chair of the Scottish Police Authority to consider how it can be further supported and aided in that work. I have made it very clear in my statement that I do not believe that the process that the Scottish Police Authority had in place in the 7 November and arriving at this decision was one that was acceptable. The new chair has given me a commitment that it will ensure that it has better governance in place in making those decisions and going forward. Alex Neil is followed by Margaret Mitchell. I first of all say that the cabinet secretary not only had a right but a duty to make sure that the process was robust, not only in terms of looking after the welfare of the complainants but in ensuring that the chief constable gets a fair hearing as well. He should not be tried in public by the media. Secondly, following on from Liam McArthur's point, can I say to the cabinet secretary that this issue calls into question the competence of some of the non-executive directors of the Scottish Police Authority, not only in relation to this issue but in relation to other issues as well? You only need to look at the evidence given to the Public Audit Committee to see the failings that have taken place in the SBA governance procedures in recent times. Will he now review the individual performance of non-executive directors to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the kind of incidents that we have had in recent times? Thirdly, there are reports of some people allegedly delaying giving their evidence to the put review in relation to the complaints against the chief constable. As I said, it is absolutely vital that chief constable is treated fairly and the complainants are treated fairly and the process is robust. However, it does require to bring this to a timuous conclusion. It does require all those involved in the investigation to co-operate fully on a timuous basis with the investigation. Will Mr Neil please bring his question to a timuous conclusion? The member raises a number of important points there. First of all, he raised the issue about reviewing the individuals of the SBA who were involved in the decision back on 7 November. I can say to remember that the chair of the SBA is giving consideration as to how they will continue to support members in the process of decision making relating to those matters. Part of the process that she has now put in place in order to address some of those issues is the Complaints and Conduct Committee, with a specific group of members of the SBA board upon it in order to consider those matters in much greater detail. It was clear from the discussions that I had with the SBA chair that she believes that that will give much greater focus to those matters in considering those issues. I hope that the member would recognise that as being an important step in trying to strengthen the processes relating to the issue and working with SBA board members on how they arrive at those decisions. The member then went on to raise issues around the PERC investigation and the suggestion that there may be a delay in taking evidence from individuals. The member will recognise that the PERC is conducting the investigation independently. The timeframe is within its gift, and that must be respected. I, like many members, would wish the investigation to be completed as early as possible, because I believe that that is in everyone's interest. However, the reality is that the investigation will take as long as is required, and I would fully expect those who have a part to plan that to fully co-operate with that. However, I am sure that the member will want to respect that process and recognise that the PERC is taking it forward in a manner that allows it to investigate the issue thoroughly and also fairly. The timeframe for that cannot be specified as it could compromise aspects of the investigation. SPA is the statutory body that has the power alone to determine the chief constable's operational deployment status, not the Scottish Government. That is essential to protect the independence of the chief constable. Unless the cabinet secretary has chosen to use his formal powers under the 2012 act, any intervention in his part resulting in a unanimous decision of the SPA board being overturned could be ultra-virus. The cabinet secretary confirmed to me during topical questions on 14 November—five days after 9 November—that he had never used those formal powers. Can the cabinet secretary therefore confirm if he misled the chamber in his response to me or if he has acted out with his powers? The answer to both those questions is no, because to use those formal powers of direction a nodder would be also placed in Parliament, so it would be publicly noted. Secondly, it was a request that I made to the chair and a request that he agreed to, given the range of concerns that I raise with him. I should refer to Margaret Mitchell's comments on the matter, because I heard on the radio earlier this morning that I should take an absolute interest in the governance and leadership of Police Scotland. I should take an absolute interest in the governance and leadership of Police Scotland. That was an issue of governance in having a robust clear process in place. That is why those concerns and questions were raised with the chair of the SPA, and he agreed to revisit the matter in order to consider the issues that I raised with him. That was taken forward at the board on 10 November. That basis is very clear. That was not a direction under the statutory powers that ministers have. That was a request to the chair of the SPA, and he agreed to take those concerns forward, and that was considered at the SPA's consideration of the issue on 10 November. Rona Mackayde, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Can the cabinet secretary give an update on the current position regarding the chief constable's leave of absence? As it stands at the present moment, the chief constable's leave of absence is being considered on a folk weekly basis by the Scottish Police Authority. It was last considered on 19 December by the Scottish Police Authority where they agreed to continue his period of extended leave. It will be considered again on 25 January, and the SPA will give consideration to a range of factors in determining what further measures should be put in place or whether he should continue on a period of leave. Jackie Baillie, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Presiding Officer, legislation is clear. Operational policing decisions are a matter for the Scottish Police Authority, not the cabinet secretary. I cannot help but wonder whether the cabinet secretary should have taken the time over the past year to sort out the SPA rather than sorting out individual decisions. The letter from the commissioner tells us that had she been consulted, she would have been content with the chief constable's return. Can the cabinet secretary therefore tell me? Did he or his officials speak to the commissioner about this, and when? Did he or his officials speak to the deputy chief constable, Ian Livingstone, or the senior management team at Police Scotland, and when? Has he or his officials spoken to the chief constable, Phil Gomley, since 7 November 2017? I will deal with the issue again about this being an operational matter. This is an issue of governance within the SPA. It is not an operational matter, and the legislation is very clear in the divisions relating to those matters. She asked whether I had consulted the SPA if I had consulted the PIRC, whether I had consulted Police Scotland, or whether I had consulted any other parties, including the chief constable, on 9 November. The issue here was for the SPA to undertake that consultation as part of the process in considering those issues. The reality is that, when I met the chair of the SPA on 9 November, he had not carried out that consultation. No consultation with the PIRC, no engagement with Police Scotland on planning for this with the senior command team, and no consideration to the welfare of officers and staff. That would be a matter for the SPA to take forward. Given that this is on the afternoon of 9 November, when the chief constable was due to restart his duties on 10 November at 8 am, it was important that the SPA had the opportunity to go and look at that matter. That is exactly what they did when they considered the issue at their board meeting on 10 November. I am conscious that I have five more members wishing to ask questions. However, we are already running out of time. This could have a slight knock-on effect on the subsequent debate or possible indecision time. However, given the level of interest indicated simply by the number of members in the chamber, I am going to let it run on. Fulton MacGregor, followed by Maurice Corry. Can the cabinet secretary expand on why there is a need for consultation with the PIRC regarding the chief constable returning to work? As I mentioned in my statement, it is important that, while the PIRC is leading an investigation into a complaint, which, if proven, has been assessed as could amount to gross misconduct, it is important that, in any decisions that the SPA is making in relation to individuals involved in that, it gives due consideration to the investigation. I think that that is why it is reasonable to expect that any discussions about the chief constable returning to work should be informed by close liaison with the PIRC about the stage that the investigation has reached and any possible ramifications of a reinstatement for those investigations. That is about the SPA board having the fullest possible picture and understanding before they make such an important decision. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the chief constable's leave of absence was at the chief constable's own request in order to allow him time and space to focus on his preparations and addressing the allegations against him? The leave of absence was requested by the chief constable, and it was agreed by the Scottish Police Authority. Can the cabinet secretary give Parliament an assurance that the SPA will consult with all those necessary prior to future decisions regarding the chief constable's return to work? As I mentioned earlier in my response, the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority, Susan Deacon, has given such a commitment that she will ensure that there is a more robust process around the assessment of those matters, which will involve looking at aspects relating to welfare of officers and staff, engagement with the command team within Police Scotland, and liaison with the PIRC. As the letter from the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner sets out, that engagement has already started with the Scottish Police Authority, and she has given a commitment that that will continue to be the case going forward. If the cabinet secretary was so concerned on 9 November about the protection of police employees who had made complaints against the chief constable, why didn't he exercise his power of direction under section 5 of the Police and Fire Reform Act? Because the former chair of the SPA agreed to reconsider those issues and that he reconsidered at the board meeting on 10 November. We have heard during the cabinet secretary's statement that this is a very difficult and complex situation for all those involved. With that in mind, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this is not an issue that anyone should be playing politics with, and that the focus needs and must remain on ensuring that the correct procedures are followed to ensure that both those who are making the complaints and the chief constable are treated properly and fairly? As I said in my statement, it is important that the process is one that is robust and is defendable. That is in the interests of all parties—the chief constable and those who are complainants within Police Scotland, both officers and staff—and also for the integrity of the process. Everyone is interested in ensuring that the process is allowed to run its course and that it is given the opportunity to carry out the investigation in a thorough and detailed fashion. I thank the cabinet secretary and all members, particularly the last five for the brevity of their questions. That concludes our statement. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is the Glasgow 2018 European Championships. We will take a few moments for the ministers and members to change seats.