—on nifer, wrth gwrs—on fieisir hi ddim yn tyhru i ddigwydd. Mi'n ddigwydd awr i ddweud yr hynny, ac yn gyfleu bod nifer yn lleistau ym Mhwng i unigol. Rwy'n ddim yn mynd gweithio arnaeth aethaddr wrth am ei gyflaen, mae Rhôlau Robison ehl ysgol i ddefnyddio'r 14 oes i gwaith cyfnod mewn gweld, mae'r Gymru yn hynny wedi gweithio ar y ddych chi oedd y ddweud ac yn dechrau fwyaf o'r cyfrannu oherwydd i gwaith'r I now call on Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary. You've got ten minutes. Thank you very much. It's with great pride that I make this statement today, reflecting on the successful delivery of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games and what a fortnight it has been. From the very first moments of the opening ceremony, the Commonwealth Games have been a huge credit to Glasgow and to Scotland. The atmosphere, not just in Glasgow but across the country, has been electric. Every competitor, from the furthest and nearest reaches of the Commonwealth, has experienced the warm welcome and support of the people of Scotland. Teams Scotland were absolutely phenomenal. They pulled off a record medal hall, smashing previous totals, smashing national records and personal bests. The final tally of 53 medals, 19 of those gold, is a fantastic reflection of the commitment and dedication of every single member of the team. It's also, I have to say, an excellent return on the £50 million investment that we have made in Commonwealth Games sports and performance programmes through Sport Scotland. Who could forget the beaming smile of Erid Davies as she received her medal, or Ross Murdoch's joy when he realised he had won gold? Very special moments indeed. A personal high note of mine was when I had the unique privilege of awarding Scotland's first medal of the Games to Ailey McGlenn OBE and partner Louise Haston after the one that's silver in the tandem sprint. The number of spectators at the Games exceeded all expectations, with a remarkable £1.2 million tickets sold. Time after time, we saw amazing crowds who really helped to make the games and cheered on athletes whether they were winning or not. At Ibrox, we had the largest crowd at a Rugby 7s tournament anywhere in the world ever. Over half a million people participated in the festival 2014 events, and the lawn bowls at Kelvin Grove saw sell-out crowds. Of course, it wasn't just a sport that was unforgettable. Memories of John Barrowman's kiss, trotting Scotty dogs, South African soprano, Pimenza Matsukitsa singing Freedom Kamawi, and the incredible £5 million raised for UNICEF at the opening ceremony will, I'm sure, stay with us all. Of course, the closing ceremony was particularly moving. Doogie McLean's Caledonia and the CGF flag being lowered to Affon Kiss captured the mood of the nation at that moment. No games could happen without a vast amount of hard work from an incredible range of people. It gives me great pleasure to formally offer my thanks to everyone who played a part in delivering these games. There's always a risk when you start listing particular individuals or organisations that you miss one out, but that's a risk that I'm willing to take this afternoon as there are some groups and people that really deserve a particular thank you. First of all, I want to pay tribute to colleagues in the chamber who have supported the vision and ambition of these games, in particular Patricia Ferguson, who guided the bid in its early stages, and Lord McConnell, who, as previous First Minister, initially spearheaded the bid, and has continued to be a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the games. To Glasgow City Council, as host city, there has been a crucial partner throughout the seven years of preparation, as well as the 11 days of sporting competition. They are significant contribution, they are work in delivering venues for the games and how they stepped up their normal city operations work, to ensure that the city's sparkled was vital. The passion, professionalism and perseverance of the whole team at Glasgow City Council cannot be overstated and we owe them our thanks. We must remember, too, the contribution of local authorities beyond Glasgow. Angus, Dundee, Edinburgh, North and Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and East Dunbattenshire all hosted games venues and did a sterling job to ensure that the experience of athletes and spectators at events out with Glasgow matched those of the host city itself. Of course, every local authority took part in the curtain raiser to the games, the Queen's Baton really, affording it a fantastic welcome. Commonwealth Games Scotland, as host Commonwealth Games Association, has played an important role in supporting the delivery of the games. They have done a tremendous job, not least in preparing Team Scotland. My special thanks to Chairman Michael Cavanaugh and Chef Demission John Doig. The team's success was a great deal to the work of Sport Scotland and their world-class sporting system model. That approach has developed and inspired all of our 310 athletes at these games and, of course, delivered the biggest ever pool of talent for Commonwealth Games Scotland to draw on. I want to take the opportunity to formally thank Louise Martin, chair of Sport Scotland and also the honorary secretary of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Her passion and commitment in both roles has made a significant contribution to the success of the games and I want to recognise her fundamental role in winning the bid for Glasgow and Scotland. Much of the painstaking preparation for the games was undertaken, of course, by the Organising Committee, the organisation set up by Commonwealth Games Scotland, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to stage the games. A personal thanks to Lord Smith, chair of the Organising Committee and chief executive secretary, David Grevenberg, and we wish him well in his new role. From incredibly visible aspects of games planning such as the memorable ceremonies to the unseen minutiae of sorting out volunteer shift rosters, the Organising Committee has worked tirelessly to ensure that every aspect of the games runs smoothly. Police Scotland did a fantastic job working with a broad range of partners to deliver a safe and secure games. The patient and friendly approach of police officers across the games venues was wonderful. Both the visible and hidden work of all the emergency services was crucial to the success of the games and I'm grateful to them all. A particular thanks is also due to the armed forces for their support to the security effort. At any games, transport planning is always going to be a particular challenge and these games represented probably one of the most complex transport challenges that Scotland has ever faced, with almost 700,000 people visiting the city over the weekend of the 26th and 27th of July alone. I give my thanks to those who work tirelessly to keep us on the move. Despite everyone's best endeavours, some people did experience difficulties in every effort that was made to resolve problems quickly and learning from this will be used in future events. As Parliament will remember, one of the key aspirations for the games was to celebrate diversity and deliver a truly inclusive programme. I'd like to thank our partners for sharing in that vision and including those considerations in their planning and dealing with workforce athletes in the public alike to deliver a truly accessible games. I'm delighted too that with our support, Pride House saw many visitors from across Scotland and the Commonwealth and was a great success. I also want to pay a special thanks to the people of Dalmarnock and other communities around games venues who have shown great patience and understanding in the face of disruption caused by the games. I'm very confident that the long-term benefits to those areas will be substantial and to the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow, and of course that will continue. To every community in Glasgow and further a field that hosted games activities, a big thank you. The biggest thank you, however, has to go to the real heroes of the games who gave up their holidays or took time off work so that they could volunteer to make the games a success. They were without doubt the face of the games and the games could not have happened without them. The Clyde Ciders and the host city volunteers had unstoppable enthusiasm, limitless energy and an unending willingness to go the extra mile. The games could not have happened without them and a great big thank you to each and every one of them. It's hard to believe that it's only 40 hours since the closing ceremony brought the games to an end with the Commonwealth joining together to sing Ald Lang Syne. The games may be over, but the story of the games most certainly is not. We've always been clear that a legacy will not happen by chance, that we must continue to work long after the closing ceremony to ensure that it continues to be delivered for the whole of Scotland and I'm pleased that this chamber will have an opportunity on Thursday to discuss the game's legacy. Now, however, it is right to pause and take a moment to reflect on the extraordinary events of the last fortnight. With the eyes of the world turned to Glasgow two weeks ago, we were ready. We showed the world that Scotland provides the perfect stage to host major events. We showed that our people are amongst the friendliest and that even the Scottish weather can occasionally rise to sunshine on us. Through hard work, grit and good humour, we have proven that when we are handed such a great responsibility, Scotland delivers. The games were described by Mike Hooper, the chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Games Federation, as the stand-out games in the history of the Commonwealth movement, and we thank him for those kind words. I can't think of a better way to end this statement than echoing that the words of Prince Imran, the president of the Commonwealth Games Federation, who has been a great supporter of the games and a great friend of Glasgow and of Scotland. He closed the games with the declaration that the games had been pure dead brilliant and a tremendous Scottish accent that I'm sure he must have been practising for quite some time. All I can say is that I agree with him. Scotland and Glasgow have done us proud and each and every one of us in this chamber should be extremely proud of what has been achieved. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we must move to the next slide of business. It would be helpful if members wished to ask a question where to press a request to speak but now, and I call on Patricia Ferguson. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for providing an advanced site of it. It's not often we hear a cabinet secretary talking about something being pure dead brilliant or indeed a member of royalty, but on this occasion I think they were both spot on. The cabinet secretary in her 10-minute contribution, of course, had time to praise all the many people and organisations who contributed to making the games such a success. I don't have time, obviously, to mention them all, so I would simply want to add my praise and thanks to all those that the cabinet secretary mentioned, perhaps with one exception in the interests of modesty, but I would also like to add one or two additional people, if I may. There are people who deserve our praise and our thanks, and I don't think that the cabinet secretary missed them out deliberately, but she did include them in her comments earlier on. I think that we should also mention the executive member for the games at Glasgow City Council, Councillor Archie Graham, who led within the City Council, Bridget McConnell of the City Council, who was involved in the bid from 2002 when it was first an idea and a vision, and who led and delivered in that department the venues and the sporting culture events. Mike Hooper, the chief executive of the Commonwealth Games Federation, who, while always maintaining the impartiality that he would expect from someone in that role, was always welcoming and ready to show support and helped to Glasgow's bid in the early stages, as well as after we had won in 2007. Of course, he will stand down in a few short months' time and deserves to have our thanks and praise. Of course, the cabinet secretary herself, who has, since her appointment, led from the front with that, I know that this is not always an easy task. I have described it sometimes as the best job in government, and it is, but it is not without its challenges. Well done also to the cabinet secretary and her team for everything that they have done. It is right that we reflect, as we have done, on the wonderful events of the past two weeks. We have all enjoyed a marvellous experience. I am not sure that all the volunteers did have such limitless energy, as the cabinet secretary described. I, for one, am still knackered and do not expect to be anything other for at least another week, but that is perhaps more about me and my level of fitness than anything else. However, it is important that we recognise that the enthusiasm that Glasgow and Scotland showed for those games also showed us that a multi-games, a multi-sport event such as the Commonwealth Games can be a real impetus for change in our country. It can inspire people to be more active more often, as we all want them to be, and it can make that difference. It can be that spark that encourages someone to take up sport and to see it through to become a competitor and, hopefully, a winner in the future. I am a supporter, as the cabinet secretary knows, of the legacy programme that both the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council have delivered, but I wonder if she would perhaps ahead of Thursday's debate say a little bit of how we harness the impetus that there is and how we make sure that we do not lose any time that we move quickly to make sure that the opportunities that the games have given us to make that step change in Scotland's life and culture actually happens. I thank Patricia Ferguson and I hope that she did enjoy her time as a Clyde sider. I saw her in action—very impressive. I also pay tribute to Archie Gray. Sometimes I saw Councillor Graham more than I saw my husband of the last year. It was a team effort. Bridget McConnell did a tremendous job with the opening and closing ceremonies and having oversight of that. I hope that she wishes in his retirement, which I am sure is looking forward to. The team Scotland, in its broadest sense, was the team that delivered Scottish Government staff, agency staff, council staff and everybody was all shoulders to the wheel. In terms of the legacy going forward, Thursday gives us the opportunity to talk about that in more detail, but I am very keen to keep the momentum going because we have 50 fantastic national legacy programmes that are delivering real change in communities, but those take time. I am keen that we keep the momentum going and that we will have more opportunities to discuss that in some detail on Thursday, which I look forward to. I add a strong sense of thanks and congratulations to everybody who was involved in the Commonwealth Games. They were outstanding. I am going to give my age away, but it was the third Commonwealth Games that I have attended as a spectator and have been at two Olympics and nothing compares with the atmosphere that we had in Glasgow. Cabinet Secretary, you did not add congratulations to the two Governments, both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, who I think worked extraordinary hard and proved that just how successful it can be when these two Governments come together. On a general theme, you have mentioned about the legacy and the fact that we have an opportunity on Thursday to debate it. Can I ask for a specific commitment in that debate that we look at the legacy as far as our younger children are concerned, particularly in primary school, because that is at the age where they first take up their interest in enthusiasm for sport, and if we could have a commitment for that debate, that would be very helpful. Obviously, in paying tribute to the armed forces, that was secured through negotiation with the UK Government, and we are particularly pleased that was the outcome of those discussions. I think that the armed forces provided a very important looking feel along with Police Scotland to the front-of-house experience that spectators had, and they did a tremendous job. We certainly recognise that contribution. On the legacy that Liz Smith wants us to focus on in terms of children, there is a lot to see around that, because a lot of the legacy programmes have focused around young children. I can certainly give her that commitment going forward. Thank you very much. Can I also congratulate everyone for facilitating fantastic Glasgow Commonwealth Games, especially thanks to my fellow Glaswegians who made everyone so very, very welcome and thoroughly enjoy themselves also. Cabinet Secretary, with a record hall of medals won by Team Scotland Women, can I ask what plans there are to encourage more female participation in sport? First, I will say what a fantastic job our female athletes did. They were, I think, approximately 46 per cent of the team, and they won just short of 40 per cent of the medals. What was really good was to see our media profiling women athletes. In fact, one day there was a whole page of women athletes who had performed, and I would really like to think that that might continue beyond those games, because I think that the profile of women in sport is very important. On a couple of other aspects, we are working very hard through the Active Girls programme that Sport Scotland runs to particularly keep teenage girls active, because we know that that is a big challenge. More broadly, the working group on women in sport that Bair Nesw Campbell is chairing for me is going to report in the next few weeks about how we can support and improve the position of women in sport and indeed encourage more female participation in sport, so I very much look forward to her recommendations and then taking those forward. Good afternoon, Presiding Officer. I am very enlightened with the minister's statement this afternoon and Patricia's follow-up of that. I think that it is fantastic that what we have achieved and I would like to see a lot more of what we have already achieved to continue. I do feel that we have perhaps missed out the phone-offs and all the embassies around the world. They gave us a great deal of support and help. I know that for effect when I was visiting Sri Lanka and I wish to add my thanks to them as well. I also wish to ask the minister what else could she do to help and support the minority communities to take more part in supporting activities in Scotland? I also agree with Hanzala Malik that the embassies provided a very important support to the Queen's Baton really on its international leg. Through our agencies, we worked very closely with them to make sure that Scotland was promoted and the opportunities on the international stage were very important to us when the Queen's Baton really was on its journey. In terms of encouraging people from various communities into sport, a lot of work has been done around breaking down barriers. Sport Scotland has been working very closely with governing bodies and clubs to make sure that they are open to everyone and that barriers—whether they are physical barriers or attitudinal barriers—are removed so that everyone can take part in sport. The 150-plus community sports hubs that are well on their way to being delivered provide an opportunity within communities for people locally to access sport in a very straightforward, easy and simple way. Again, we have made it very clear that those hubs have to be open to everyone, so we will continue to work around those issues. I will be very happy to speak to Hanzala Malik in more detail about that at a later stage. I thank the minister on behalf of Patricia Ferguson myself and all the 15,000 Clyde-siders for her kind words to us. Can she give any indication of how she thinks Clyde-siders and other volunteers can be drawn into more regular volunteering after the games? Can I thank John Mason for his contribution as a Clyde-sider? I hope that he enjoys the experience. I am sure that he did. I say to John Mason that we have been very lucky in that when people registered to become a volunteer, they were asked to give permission for their information to be shared. That has provided a huge database to volunteer Scotland, not just those who are successful in becoming Clyde-siders but those who were not. I hope that, over the next few months, we will have a more detailed picture of how many people continue to volunteer, perhaps for the first time, in their communities. That is a resource that is potentially huge for our local clubs and for sport in the community. I am keen to follow up on that as a priority. Thank you very much and let me add my congratulations to all involved in delivering such a successful game. The North East zone, Hannah Miley, helped to set the tone when winning the first gold medal of the 19 gold medals. She did it in spectacular fashion. The talent and determination and ambition of each individual athlete needs to be matched by ambitious investment in coaching and training facilities. The aquatic centre in Aberdeen is a good example of that ambition. Members might well remember Nicolle Steven's determination that it should be a 50-metre competition pool, but there are other sports that are less well resourced. Looking forward, which sports does the minister anticipate being nurtured and developed so that future medal halls are even excelling the bounty that we had this year? First of all, Hannah Miley was absolutely fantastic and a great ambassador for sport and for women's sport in particular. She asked about coaching and investment in coaching and training facilities. I can tell her that the sport Scotland has invested an unprecedented level of resource into both coaching and training and facilities over the course of the preparations for those games. Obviously, a lot of the focus on additional investment was on the 17 Commonwealth Games sports, but that did not mean that the other sports did not get investment. They did, but perhaps not quite the same level of intensity. I can also tell her that, just a few weeks ago, the sport Scotland announced a new £20 million regional and national facilities fund that will help to add to our fantastic world-class state-of-the-art facilities that we already have. Certain areas have been prioritised for that investment because it is recognised that they could benefit from additional state-of-the-art performance facilities. That programme will continue. I think that we should be very pleased at where we are at compared to maybe 10 or 15 years ago. The facilities that we have are second to none now, and that is something that we should make sure that we fully utilise going forward into the future. James Donan, followed by Eileen Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On the subject of congratulating people, I think that somebody should be congratulated as Stuart Maxwell, who played an important role in the bid process to make sure that we won those games. I am sure that many others here remember the day in fruit market when the result came through on a big screen, which was a day I remember, although I wish I had been over carrying his bag when I worked one at a time. There has been a lot of talk about legacy here. It is great that the games will bring a lasting legacy not just to Glasgow but to Scotland as a whole. There are also a number of local organisations working to deliver a legacy out with Scotland, such as Catharole, Parrish Church and my constituency, who are involved and have hit the net programme to help to protect children from malaria. They have used the Commonwealth Games particularly well to raise funds for that prospect. Can the cabinet secretary align to me what impact she expects Glasgow games to have as a legacy on the rest of the Commonwealth? First of all, I thank James Dornan for recognising and allowing me to recognise Stuart Maxwell's very important contribution. As I said in my statement, when you start listing people, there are always some that you name and some that you don't, but absolutely, Stuart Maxwell's contribution was critical in taking forward. In fact, when I took over the sports portfolio in 2009, the work that he had done before made my job a lot easier and taking that forward. In terms of James Dornan's comments about some of the work going on in his constituency, first of all, to pay tribute to all of that legacy work and the events that were put in place by so many local organisations, I think that they really added to the flavour of those games. In terms of what I would expect the games to have by way of impact on the rest of the Commonwealth, there are a number of programmes that I think will leave a lasting legacy. The game on Scotland programme, the education programme, has developed a lot of links between schools here in Scotland and schools across the Commonwealth, which is something that we should be very pleased about. The UNICEF partnership, which has raised £5 million, will allow work to take place now in all Commonwealth countries around children's rights. The 3350 Commonwealth Youth Leadership programme is a programme that we would like to see continue and to encourage the Gold Coast to look at that as a legacy programme going forward. We have a huge number of opportunities to keep that work going across the Commonwealth, and I will certainly be looking to do that way that I can. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Commonwealth Games was indeed a fantastic success, which I'm sure will inspire young people to get involved and produce future generations of elite athletes. However, I'd like to ask the Cabinet Secretary for her views on how the success of the games can be used to encourage those of us who are old enough to realise that we will never be a Usain Bolt or an Ailey Child or a Hannay Miley to become more active more often. Cabinet Secretary, I'll never say never. I'll say that Ailey Miley makes an important point, because although the focus has been on young people and a lot of the capacity that's been created in the clubs for that expected upsurge, which we know will come when people are inspired by all those fantastic athletes to take up a sport, maybe for the first time, but it won't just be young people doing that. I suspect that we'll see people of all ages taking up the opportunity to try new sports, particularly those who have been a focal point within those games. Beyond that, we have been continuing to fund really great programmes through legacy-like paths for all, because we know that walking can be a really important way of getting people healthy, who perhaps have had quite a sedentary lifestyle. The average age for paths for all tends to be perhaps the kind of 50 plus, but great feedback in terms of the health impact and the social impact of that programme as well, and hopefully Thursday I'll give us an opportunity to explore some of that in more detail. Finally, Maureen Watt, can you keep it brief, please? Yes, the cabinet secretary rightly recognised the huge contribution that the volunteers made, some working 48-hour weeks and some working many weeks before and still working. At the village, for example, some getting up at 3.30 as one volunteer from the Presiding Officer's constituency did, getting up at 3.30am to make the 7am start. I wonder whether she could find a way of having that recognised and enhancing her employment prospects by sending an email to those who want it, confirming their contribution and commitment to strengthen their future CVs. I'm pleased to be able to tell the member that each volunteer will receive a certificate of achievement, which is recognised by SQA, and will list the skills and attributes of each volunteer and, particularly, achievements that they have gained throughout their experience of volunteering at the Games. In addition to that, they will receive information on next step options and, last but not least, a thank you letter from the First Minister. Thank you very much. I pass on my apologies to the three members that I simply couldn't call today, but we need to move on to next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1072, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on Scotland and Malawi, a special relationship. I call on Humza Yousaf to speak to and move the motion. I very much welcome the opportunity to highlight the special relationship that exists between Scotland and Malawi. I thank everyone for attending the debate. I know how important that relationship is to members across the chamber of all political persuasions and none. It shows a real commitment and belief in the relationship between our two countries. The timing of the debate is particularly appropriate, given the next round of the Malawi Development Fund that opened this morning. I've been asked—I was very involved in the games across the chamber, and I was asked constantly throughout my time in Glasgow to live in days—what was my favourite part of the opening ceremony? Was it the Iron Brew holding up the bridge? Was it dancing tunic's teacakes? Was it Nessie's particular interest to our foreign dignitaries? My favourite moment—all of that was great, of course, but my favourite moment by far was the fact that Glasgow and our opening ceremony became the first opening ceremony ever to raise money for children across the Commonwealth, some of the poorest children across the Commonwealth. I think that first overshadows all the other firsts that perhaps we've had as a great city and as a great country, but that highlighted it. The reason why people took such pride in it, obviously, was a great initiative, nonetheless, to take pride in it, but inherently we feel as class regions—I think that it's Scottish as well—that we have a responsibility to show our compassion on the world stage. I was pleased that that was a stand-out moment for many, many people. 2014 has been also a momentous year for Malawi, and I was delighted to have the opportunity in January to take the Queen's Baton over to Malawi as it arrived during its journey across the Commonwealth, represented Scotland on its welcome to Llongwy. In May of this year, Malawi held its first ever tripartite election. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Malawi on those peaceful and stable elections. I welcome the new Government of Malawi and the Scottish Government, and I think that probably the whole chamber, no doubt, in the Parliament. I look forward to working with the new Government and new parliamentarians for the mutual good of both our countries. In his inaugural speech, which I read in great detail, President Professor Peter Matarica spoke of Malawi being a young democracy but also a country known for its political tolerance. He highlighted to his fellow Malawians that they have begun another leg of 50 years, and that the next 50 years of their journey presents Malawi with an opportunity to reset its priorities, rethink its strategic focus and redefine Malawi as it makes progress. We want to continue to support the Malawian Government and its people in that second leg of its journey. On 6 July of this year, Malawi celebrated 50 years anniversary of its independence. I was delighted to attend the Scottish celebrations organised largely by the Scottish Malawi partnership in Glasgow, also attended by Lord McConnell and people across the political spectrum. I had a real Malawian field to it and affirmed that special and warm relationship between Malawi and Scotland. Diplomatic protocol and friendliness would not dictate me to tell you the score of the match between myself and the Malawian High Commissioner at the table tennis, but it is fair to say that I won. Scotland is an active player in the international development world. It reflects our historic outward-facing relationship with the world and our desire to be a good global citizen. During the Commonwealth Games, I spoke of some of the more unsavory parts of our history in Scotland, in terms of Glasgow being the second city of the empire at the fantastic empire cafe. At that moment, there was a discussion that, for all the negative aspects of our history, we have a real responsibility to the poorest. For all those who were slave owners, we had in Scotland some of the greatest abolitionists, and one of them was Dr David Livingstone, who took his journey to explore the Zambezi and took education to Malawi and helped to establish the educational infrastructure. This Scottish Government has continued to commit to providing at least £3 million per year for my £9 million international development budget. At present, we fund 40 projects, straddling all four strands of the 2005 co-operation agreement. I had the privilege during the Commonwealth Games of meeting the newly appointed three weeks into post minister for youth and sport, the honourable Grace Obama Chayumia. She described our relationship as one of sisters, like a family. Like families, we also played and competed together during the games as well. I was there, as was the cabinet secretary at the Scotland versus Malawi netball game. For being our sisters, I have to say, they beat us pretty thoroughly, one has to confess. The cabinet secretary was a former netball player and was ready to get our trainers on, but time did not allow that to be the case. On my visit to Malawi during the Queen's Baton, it was a phenomenal pleasure because I got to see first hand the impact that international development projects are having on the ground. It is an enormous privilege to do that. Not everybody gets to see how that money is being spent. There are many who will question why we choose to spend the money at those projects, but having seen them first hand, I can attest to the impact that they are making on them, although we have a modest budget. It is one that I know that we are all very proud of. The impact that it is having is quite unbelievable. When I was seeing the MRE project, our renewables acceleration initiative that we have in Malawi, I was being shown one of the projects that are near the Melange mountain. I was told about how our micro hydroelectric scheme that we were helping to fund and develop, and how that allowed the first woman in the village near the mountain to be the first woman in her village to give birth in a room with a light in it—unbelievable, 21st century—thinking about how many lights we have and how much light and energy we have. She was the first woman in her village to give birth in a light. I visited Dan Glogg's Fistula hospital, which she set up, and we are helping to fund her project. Many people here are aware of Fistula, but women walking heavily pregnant in Labour are about to go into labour imminently, having to walk up to 20 or 30 kilometres. Unfortunately, the baby being stillborn, the Fistula leaving the women often in continent and needing in repair, were women who were then being outcast in their communities, sometimes even divorced by their husbands. Through the Fistula hospital and the initiatives that we were funding, Fistula was not only repaired to give them a better quality of life, but we were also funding solar-powered batteries, which they could then use as an income generator for others to come here to charge the telephone or whatever it is that they wanted to charge. Those women were going from outcasts to being leaders of business in their community. As well as the maternal health side and the renewable side, we are also very pleased by what we are doing in regard to sustainable economic development. We believe that, as important and imperative are aids, we also want to ensure that we can help Malawians to create local wealth, local business and local jobs to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why I am delighted to meet representatives of the International Bank of Malawi, which we have funded before, for their micro-loan initiatives and projects. I mentioned in my opening earlier remarks that education is always figured strongly in Scotland's relationship with Malawi. It still does to this day in terms of the church of Scotland, the education that it provides. I am delighted that we provided funding for 37 gifted and underprivileged Malawians to study master's degrees in Malawi as part of the Livingstone Bicentenary celebrations, but that is again to keep local knowledge and local skills within Malawi. We are going to be working hard to develop capacity and sustainability in the Malawian education system. Education Scotland was there with me in Malawi when I was there with the Queen's baton in signing an agreement with their counterparts in Malawi in terms of the inspection system from Malawian schools, so that we can help to drive up standards. I remind members again that the first of the Malawian triennial funding rounds is open earlier today. We will look to distribute £13 million over that period. I look forward very much to receiving those applications. In terms of giving thanks to the relationship by notice from the first week, I was in the job that it spans the length and breadth of the country and also all sectors of society, from nurses to teachers to faith groups and everybody else. Let me put on record my thanks to groups such as the Scottish Malawi Partnership, the sister organisation, the Malawi Scotland Partnership, NIDOS and many others who are involved in supporting the aims of the Government's international development policy. I look forward to listening to the debate as it unfolds in terms of the amendments that are coming forward. I look forward to accepting the amendment in the spirit of the consensus and collaborative approach that we have on the issue of Malawi. I look forward to listening to the debate and participating in it as it unfolds. Many thanks. I now call on Patricia Ferguson to speak to a move amendment 10712.1, maximum seven minutes please. It is a pleasure to speak again about Malawi in the chamber and to consider our shared commitment to that country. In passing, I would say that I whole-heartedly agree with the minister and his comments about the involvement of UNICEF in the Commonwealth Games. I thought that initiative was amazing, frankly. The kind of thing that you wonder why we haven't done that before, the opportunity of that captive audience both there in the stadium and at home is just too good an opportunity to miss. I had the pleasure of hearing the UNICEF ambassador, Sir Roger Moore, speak very movingly and very knowledgeably about his commitment to the cause and also about how UNICEF plans to take forward the work that it will do with that money. For anyone who views people like Sir Roger as the caricature that we sometimes see from Bond films, et cetera, I can say that the Sir Roger Moore we heard speaking before the opening ceremony of the games was a different person entirely in someone who I could have listened to frankly all night, but then I would have missed the opening ceremony, so that probably wouldn't have been so good. However, while the initiative to support Malawi was begun by a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition Government, it has over the years been a source of some pride in our Parliament that we have been able to come together in our support for Malawi and for international development, recognising that whatever our circumstances the plight of people in Malawi and in other countries is still of such concern that we will work above and across the political divide to provide assistance where we can. In our schools and colleges and in our churches and community organisations, people from a diverse range of backgrounds and interests come together to support our brothers and sisters in Malawi and they expect no less of us. That is why I was delighted last week that during the Commonwealth Games the minister was part of a photo call with the Malawian Scottish basketball teams following their match. The coming together of two teams who had just battled it out on the court, but who could then come together to recognise the partnership or two countries enjoy seemed to me to be a very good symbol of that work. I was only sorry that my volunteer pass did not give me access to the venue so that I could come along and cheer the minister and both teams on. However, the recent report produced by the University of Edinburgh for the Scotland-Malawi partnership identified just how effective that work in Malawi over the years has been. Estimates contained in that report would suggest that approximately 2 million Malawians have benefited directly from the activities of SNP members with many more benefiting indirectly. The report suggests that the figure may be as high as 4 million affected by work undertaken by Scottish Malawi partnership members. However, of course, the relationship is not a one-way street with some 300,000 Scots estimated to have benefited indirectly from those inputs. I think that it is important to remember that it is a two-way relationship. We will all know of examples from our own constituencies and regions, not least because half of Scotland's local authorities are members of the Scotland-Malawi partnership and are involved in that vital work. My own local authority in Glasgow is particularly active and the Lord Provost has a special fund that is used to support education, water health and sanitation projects in Malawi. City building, the arms-length construction and maintenance organisation, which happens to be based in my constituency, has built two prosthetic and orthotic clinics at LeLongway general hospital in partnership with the charity 500 Miles. It is refurbished part of the former town hall in LeLongway to transform it into a public health clinic, including an optitions and a dental suite. It has also built an HIV AIDS clinic at Chikawa district hospital. Each of those facilities makes a real difference to the lives of local people in those areas. Perhaps the most inspiring of them all, Glasgow City Council runs the Malawi leaders of learning programme with Malawi's south-west division. That project delivers new school facilities, but also encourages young students and teachers from Glasgow schools to work in Malawi, teaching and learning with their Malawi counterparts. Springburn academy has been involved in that work and it has been a real pleasure to hear the students talk about their experiences. This year's awards ceremony featured a presentation from a group of pupils who had just returned from Malawi and it was nothing less than inspiring to hear their accounts of their time there and also to see how proud they were of their achievements and the confidence it had given them as they talked about what they had done and their new friends they had made. I have no doubt that the benefit was not just to the young people and the teachers in Malawi they worked with, but also to them themselves and to that wider school community in Springburn. Of course, all of that work is underpinned by the millennium development goals about which my colleague Siobhan McMahon will say more in closing. As the chamber will have noted, the Scottish Labour amendment also talks about the work being done by the Scottish Government complementing that of DFID. I think that this is vitally important if we are to avoid duplication of effort and maximise effectiveness. After all, both Governments are working with the interests of Malawi at heart, so it is important that they learn from one another and regularly discuss and develop partnerships wherever and whenever it makes sense to do so. DFID may perhaps have the expertise and reach that Scotland does not have or the Scottish Government does not have, but, similarly, DFID could learn from the approach that the Scottish Government has taken over time to develop projects on the ground working with the Malawi Government identifying what their priorities actually are. Of course, we must also remember the many organisations throughout Scotland who work in Malawi day in and day out, two numerous to mention, Skiath, Mary's Meals and a host of others. I would also particularly like to mention Amnesty International, because I think that they do a very difficult job. They remind us that we have to be a critical friend of Malawi and that there are issues that we must take the opportunity when it is appropriate to raise with the Malawi Government. Issues such as the anti-homosexuality laws that apply and issues such as the death penalty still being enforced in Malawi, even though it is not often used these days, thankfully. I think that we have to be that critical friend and we have to take that opportunity and raise those vital issues too when the opportunity arises. In closing, I just like to applaud all the many groups and organisations and individuals throughout our country who are involved in Malawi and hope that they will continue their involvement for a very long time to come. I start by warmly welcoming the debate and declaring my interest as a member of the Scotland-Malawi partnership. Unlike other members in the chamber, I had the privilege of visiting Malawi on a parliamentary visit some years ago. Just as the minister said in relation to his own visits, those who visit us there and see the projects that have been supported by the Scottish Government's spend cannot but come away impressed and deeply moved at the difference that is making to people's lives. There are three aspects of the support from Malawi that I would like to touch on. The first is the Scottish Government's programme. As the minister accepted that it started in 2005, it has been continued and developed by the success of the Scottish Government, and it is extremely welcome and, as I said, it makes a huge difference on the ground. The second is the civic engagement that Patricia Ferguson has just talked about and the minister referred to. We are all aware of a range of charities, schools and church groups across Scotland in all our constituencies and regions that are helping in Malawi. Of course, the Government has a role here and the Government plays a key role, but the support from Brother Scotland goes way beyond what comes from Government and is of huge value. I know that that makes a tremendous difference to the lives of millions of Malawians. The third aspect of it, and that is what I touched on in my amendment, is that we cannot talk about the support from Malawi without also making reference to the support that we in Scotland give through the United Kingdom and through the role of DFID, which in 2014-15 amounts to some £90 million to Malawi supporting education, healthcare and food assistance. The UK is one of only five countries internationally meeting the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income to international development and humanitarian causes, and I think that that is very welcome. I noticed from Scotland-Malawi partnership how they welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is working in hand with the UK Government in delivering us. We know that we have a Scottish relationship with Malawi here in Scotland. In fact, you only had to watch the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games to see the raptures welcome the Malawian team got when they entered Celtic Park to know that there is a special affection here in Scotland for Malawi. The minister raised what is a very important issue, which is the question of Scotland's and indeed the UK's legacy in many of our former colonial parts of the country, and of course there are dark periods there. I thought it was interesting at the time of the Commonwealth Games, there was a poll published that said that 49 per cent of people in the UK said that they thought that the British Empire left a generally positive legacy, 15 per cent disagreed. What struck me when I visited Malawi was just how positively our influence was viewed. The minister is talking about David Livingston, who perhaps is the Scottish figure who has the most resonance and most influence in Malawi in terms of its history. David Livingston of course went to Malawi not to conquer, not to exploit and not to enslave the people, but he went there to bring freedom. He went as a liberator and his self-confessed objective was to open up Central Africa to Christianity and to commerce. Commerce was to him so important because that was the way to defeat the slave trade. He spent much of his life not actually engaged in missionary work but he spent much of his life in exploration trying to open up trade routes east to west across Africa so Central Africa could be available then to trade with the rest of the world and he saw that being the way to build a local economy that would not then be dependent upon the slave trade and that was the way to stamp that out. If you go to Malawi today it strikes you that those twin objectives ending the slave trade and introducing Christianity are what makes David Livingston so important to Malawians today and of course Malawi today is a very Christian country as anybody who's been there would testify. It's also a great role we can play in helping to strengthen democracy. I mentioned in my amendment the question of good governance. The minister reminded us that there's a new Parliament being elected in Malawi. This Parliament has played an important role in twinning with members in the Malawian Parliament, helping them to strengthen their roles. There's particular roles to be played I think in helping members to the opposition in holding government to account. Maybe that could also happen the other way around but we'll leave that debate for another day. Politics in Malawi is rather different from what we have in our country. It doesn't have party politics in the way that we do. Political parties tend to be based around regional or tribal groupings or around the personality of a leader and that makes it a different environment for parliamentarians to operate. I think that there's a lot we can try and help them with in terms of strengthening Parliament as an institution and helping them to hold government to account. I don't think that any of you who visits Malawi can come away with a very strong impression, first of all, of the deep affection for Scotland and of the importance of which they hold, the continuing ties that we continue to develop. I'm happy to applaud the Scottish Government's on-going support and I am happy to move my amendment. Many thanks. We turn to the open debate. Can I remind members who wish to speak and that to press the request to speak buttons? We are quite tight for time this afternoon. I congratulate the minister for initiating the debate today. It's not only timely because Malawi has just celebrated 50 years of independence but also because of the many recent meetings that have been between the two countries during the Commonwealth Games. In relation to Malawi's milestone in celebrating 50 years of independence, I'd like to thank all those who signed the motion that I lodged in relation to that, particularly Alec Ferguson, Jackie Baillie and Richard Simpson, the only members of the Opposition parties to recognise the significance of this date. They didn't immediately hit the delete button when they saw the word independence, not being able to separate the wood from the trees brings to mind in relation to their colleagues. However, the motion is still live and is an optimist. I hope that others will still sign it. I was pleased to be able to attend the independence celebrations at Whiting Community Centre on 12 July, when Malawians and friends of Malawi gathered for an afternoon of speeches, good food, drink and music. I was particularly pleased that there were two busloads of Malawians from Aberdeen, and even people who had come up from the southeast of England to take part in the festivities in Scotland, as there was nothing comparable in their own areas. I think that the event was much appreciated by all, and I thank the organisers and the Scotland-Malawi partnership for their role in making the event a huge success. The participants were particularly pleased to see the minister there and for him to announce that a further round of the Scottish Government Malawi Development Fund was going to be opened and people could bid for new projects in Malawi. I was pleased to meet Robert Callan from Strathclyde University, who is involved in a number of projects relating to providing clean water. I think that it is time that we had him back to the cross-party group to have an update on the impact that that work is having. I thank the minister for taking the time to meet with the new minister of youth sport and culture during the games. I know that she and the High Commissioner are much appreciated the meeting. The new minister, as I am the use of mentioned, is the honourable Grace Jamia, who, since 2010, has been my pair through this parliamentary pairing initiative with the Malawi Parliament. I am very proud of her achievement, not least that she was one of, I think, only four women returned to the Malawi Parliament after the elections, and that is despite there having been substantial efforts to ensure maximum retention of women MPs and encouragement of more, but sadly there are fewer women in this Parliament than the previous one. I hope that her meeting with Shona Robison went ahead, despite her being held up in traffic. I know that, although she was there, she was avidly supporting Malawi's netball team, which is ranked one of the highest in the world. She is a keen netball player herself, and indeed the Malawi Parliament has a netball team of its own, having played against the Kenyon Parliament. If the Cabinet Secretary for Culture was a previous netball player, I was too. Maybe we have the beginnings of a team here. I am sure that the honourable Grace Jamia will be an excellent minister. She has certainly given me much to do in gathering information to centre. I know that there is not much time in this debate, but Scotland's relationship with Malawi is a very special one, making a real difference to the lives of people in Malawi and to those in Scotland involved with Malawi. I hope that this relationship is strengthened and deepened as we go forward. I support the motion. Many thanks and to now call Sarah Boyack to be followed by Stewart Stevenson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome that this is our first debate back from the recess, immediately coming as it does after the Commonwealth Games. I think that it is important that we are celebrating the relationship that we have with Malawi. It is a special relationship. Its existence over the last decade has enriched both countries, whether it is in a Government to Government, Parliament to Parliament or people to people relationship, because all of those relationships are crucial. I strongly support the Labour amendment because it gives extra emphasis to the connections that we are building, people to people, because I think that they are absolutely vital. That is not to say that Government to Government is not important. If you look at the development programme and the development of links between the two Governments over the last decade, I think that they are absolutely vital. The initial links in health and education are absolutely crucial in terms of our contribution to reducing maternal mortality, the HIV levels of infection that there are in Malawi and the challenge of expanding and improving educational opportunity, particularly for young girls, but also as time goes on, thinking not just about primary school but about secondary school and then on to further and higher education. Those initial key areas of work have enabled a large number of NGOs and community organisations to come in with and build on the Scottish Government's work, but also to add their own contributions. I think that the work that is being done on climate change and renewables is also important. If I could just add the crucial importance of agriculture to Malawi, when we were the last day on our visit, the issue of rampant inflation was a key issue for the economy and access to fertilisers was something that all the Malawi and community groups in relation to farming were very concerned about, but there is research on climate change and there is a huge raft of work that needs yet to be done on water quality. One of the lessons that came from our last visit was that it was not just enough to put in infrastructure. You need trained local people with the skills, knowledge and resources to keep that infrastructure working. There is nothing worse in a developing country than a broken water feature, because that is a tantalising feature that shows you what might have been, what could have been but not what is. I think that the chance to share knowledge and skills and promote sustainable development is absolutely crucial. I think that the minister's point about enabling Malawi's economy to grow is right. Again, there is more that we can do in terms of civic participation through fair trade, through the co-operative movement to enable some of the smallest communities and actually some of the most isolated communities in Malawi to be successful. The Parliament-to-Parliament relationship is important to—and it was briefly mentioned by Murdo Fraser—the sharing of best practice. I do not think that people in Scotland should underestimate the importance of that. The foundation of our own Parliament was done on the basis of accountability and transparency and equality and the knowledge that we were building on other institutions' best practice. It is not that we say that we are the only way or the best way to do everything, but here is the experience that we have for good or ill. Here is what has worked, here is what has not worked. In the last visit to Alex Ferguson and I did, a large part of our work was sharing our experiences, particularly in audit, particularly in holding Government ministers to account. A successful parliamentary democracy needs effective opposition. It is very interesting visiting a country that is a developing democracy. Again, it is not about imposing what we do and how we do it, but it is opening up that discussion and opening up a debate about how best to hold a Government account. I want to finish on the people-to-people link. That is the element that is in Patricia Ferguson's amendment, which is absolutely crucial. It is the people-to-people link that most of us get excited about. The huge numbers of people in our community—well-recorded by the Scotland-Malawi partnership—are involved in day-to-day organisational campaigning, volunteering, community solidarity and support for some of the world's poorest and most disadvantaged communities. I am afraid that you need to close, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been said of Malawi that it is the warm heart of Africa. What better country could we seek to have a relationship with? I want to pick up some of the things that Sarah Boyack said about agriculture and highlight some of the great challenges that we are imposing on countries such as Malawi, and perhaps Malawi in particular, in our western developed world. Malawi, two thirds of Malawi's exports are tobacco. We, quite rightly, are seeking to remove tobacco as a major part of our society for the health of people in our country and other countries that are doing the same. However, when we do that, that will have a significant effect on the economy of a country like Malawi, where two thirds of the exports are tobacco-based. We owe a duty to countries such as Malawi to help them to cross to a more beneficial mode of agriculture that is essentially self-sufficient in food for themselves. However, we are already seeing some danger that tobacco farmers in the face of lowering profits are moving across to grow cannabis. That will not be helpful in the long term for people in desperate need in countries such as Malawi. Climate change is also making agriculture a more formidable challenge in many countries in Africa as well. We are largely responsible in the developed world for that. We need to make sure that we are supporting people in Malawi. We are ready doing so. We have a number of programmes that we are supporting there. Of course, I have said before in this place that climate change in Africa in particular has a gender bias in that it differentially affects women over men, because women are generally those who are homemakers and their agronomists. While the men sit round the village table discussing the state of world affairs, the women are doing the actual work. Walking further to get water, getting less for their efforts from the soil as a result of climate change. I very much welcome the initiative that the previous administration here took to build effective relationships with Malawi and that continues to be sustained by the present Government. We have a number of relationships with Malawi. Hastings Banda, who was born in about 1898, came to Edinburgh to convert his medical qualification to one that was acceptable here in the UK. In 1941, Edinburgh University awarded him three separate awards. My father actually knew him because my father was studying medicine and was in some of the same classes at the same time. I do not necessarily hold up Hastings Banda's contribution to Malawi as one of unalloyed success, but he did at least start that country off. Many of the boundaries in Africa were arbitrarily imposed by colonialists, and we share some of the blame there. However, one of the great things that is happening in Malawi is that a sense of adherence to that country, artificial as it was in its genesis, is clearly being reflected in public life today. A democracy can be tested in a very simple way. A democracy exists if a Government allows itself to be removed from office by a ballot of its people. Malawi has passed that fundamental test, and that is something that we very much for you should welcome. I welcome what both the Opposition parties say in their amendments. I do not know what the Government's position is going to be, but each of them contain merit. Malawi is an important friend of ours, let us be an ever important friend of Malawi. Many thanks. I now call on Richard Simpson to be followed by Christina McKelvie. I want to concentrate mainly on health issues, because Malawi does have an average life expectancy of 38 years, reflecting some of the world's highest rates for infant and maternal mortality, malnutrition and infectious diseases. Currently, only 51 per cent of the 14.9 million population has access to good sanitation. 47 per cent of the children under five are stunted. One in 36 pregnant women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and HIV and AIDS, which is prevalent throughout Africa, is at a level of 10.8 per cent. Despite those dire health statistics, the country is one of the lowest number of doctors per capita, one per 50,000. International epidemiological studies also suggest that the rates of mental illness in Malawi are at least as high as those in western countries. The mental health provision is to say the least extremely sparse. There is actually only one state psychiatrist, Dr Felix Cow. The Scottish Malawi mental health education project, charity, is a good example of Scots working together with Malawians. Currently, the project delivers the teaching of psychiatry model, module to medical students, supports postgraduate psychiatric trainees, delivers training to psychiatric nurses and clinical officers based in Zumba mental hospital and the Queen Elizabeth central hospital in Blantar, and to help to organise the annual mental health conference attended by delegates from most of sub-Sahara Africa, the UK, Europe and the USA. This is a good example of a project receiving multiple support from the College of Psychiatrists, the Scottish Government, the NHS Education Trust Scotland, Tropical Health Education Trust and local postgraduate deineries and tutors. The other big topic is tackling infectious diseases, particularly in pneumonia and diarrhea, where, over the past decade, Malawi has made significant progress in reducing the deaths in children under five. Still, when pneumonia is a big killer, taking the lives of 1,000 babies a year—babies and young children in 2010—diarrhea is another factor that is causing the deaths of about 600 children per year. No single intervention can be effective in the treatment of control of either condition, but the good news is that Malawi is beginning to reduce the infections and deaths from the two previously stubborn killers using multiple actions, of which vaccines against pneumococcal bacteria and rotavirus are two of the newest tools and are now part of the regular routine childhood vaccination schedule. As Patricia Ferguson said, it is important that the Government work in partnership with the Department for International Development, whose expenditure is £117 million in Malawi. I am working with them in their programme on education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, with an emphasis on the rights of girls and women, which is clearly important and accepted. I briefly want to finish on a particular community, Dunblane, who is working in the Lycobolau partnership, an example of how one community connects at many different levels with another. It is begun by the Dunblane Cathedral connecting to a church guild at CCAP Church and from those initial church links spreading throughout the Dunblane community to include Dunblane High School and many other groups. They now support bursaries for the secondary school. They provide, in the provision of clean water and sanitation, work in partnership with many meals to provide primary school meals in a kitchen donated by Dunblane. The Bridgvaland Dunblane Rotary, working with the Anne Globe Foundation, supports the elimination of fistula, which is in the Freedom from Fistula programme. It is these sorts of multi-level connections and support involving the UK Government, the Scottish Government and various organisations in Scotland and communities that we can continue to foster the glowing number of partnerships with Malawi. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As a young child, I was taken on a school visit, and I think that I may have told this part of this story before, to the David Livingston Centre in Blantyre. As a 10-year-old who was reading ferociously at the time about all sorts of interesting things around the world, to have that day with adventures across Africa, pervading every part of my memory and getting me really interested in some of the medical horror stories. I have never forgotten what Bill Harpsey is, and if anybody wants to know what it is, go and look it up. It is horrifying, but I was absolutely engrossed to the end in a slavery, to the romanticism of Livingston's body being carried across Africa, for Bill at Westminster Abbey, to the animals and the flowers and the fight with a lion and the jack-a-rand-of-trees. Those are all the things that engrossed me as a child and my adventures in my head about going to Africa. It takes me back to Hamilton, a part of my constituency, where at the United Reformed Church in Kent Street, which is the church of David Livingston and his family, they still have those very strong links to this day with David Livingston's family and Africa. That takes me on to another adventure. In 2000, I was very blessed to join the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on a visit to Malawi, which was to encourage women to stand in the elections. We are delighted that some of the women that we know have been re-elected and are involved in government and politics there. I am equally delighted that the Scottish Government has announced the Scottish Government Development Fund to empower women in Malawi. That is very important to do. We have always had a commitment to any way across all parties and none across the chamber. My travels took me from the long way up to Nakata Bay. I was able to see many projects of different funding models, but some of the ones from the Scottish Government took my attention from the cassava growers to the sweet potato growers to the fish ponds that had been set up, where those villages were all set up in a proper, true co-operative system, trading and food, creating jobs, creating commerce and freedom from poverty that Murdo Fraser spoke about in his contribution. The trade between the villages was very interesting. If it was a big fish or a big cassava pod, it argued off who was the best and whether there should be two pods to one fish or not. It was fantastic to see that type of commerce going on. That takes me to the civic Scotland and the relationship that we continually have with Malawi. In my travels in Malawi, I met school children at a number of primary schools who could tell me more about David Livingstone, which was a bit of a feat because I was a bit of a fan of his time in Malawi and Zambia and his time on Lake Malawi and the work that he did there to open up that route with the ferries and boats and stuff. It is just amazing to see these wee kids who were taking all this on board. One of the great things that we have in here is the Scottish Malawi partnership. Last week, they had a pop-up shop at the Commonwealth Games, where they had all sorts of information about Scotland and Malawi and the partnership that they have. They published a new report from Edinburgh University, where 94,000 Scots and 198,000 Malawians have been actively involved in building that amazing positive relationship. The Scottish Government international development grants are also very welcome because they keep building that relationship. It is that positive, deep and long-lasting relationship that Scotland enjoys with Malawi. It is imperative that we nurture and grow it. It is imperative that we keep it going, but it is also that relationship with Malawi and all the other members of the family of nations proving that Scotland is indeed a good global citizen. We now move to the closing speeches and I call on Jamie McGregor for minutes, please. Thank you. This has been a very interesting debate with very good contributions from Richard Simpson on health matters, Stuart Stevenson on the history of Hastings Bander and Christina McKelvie on the political elements, to name but a few. The Scottish Conservatives recognise and are proud of Scotland's strong and enduring historic links with Malawi, which began with the missionary work of the explorer David Livingstone, and we support the good work being undertaken in Malawi with Scottish Government funding through over 40 projects. We also recognise the scale of the challenges facing Malawi. As we have heard today, Malawi ranks 171 out of 187 in the UN Human Development Index. While Malawi has made some progress on its millennium development goals, it is still unlikely to meet most targets. Poverty levels in Malawi remain at 51%, and despite many efforts have not registered a significant reduction since 2004, and rural poverty has increased to 56.6%, as has income inequality. There have been some welcome progress on under-five and infant mortality, HIV treatment and access to water and sanitation, but maternal mortality remains high with 10 women dying every day. There are also the well publicised concerns about governance, accountability and transparency in the country, which have led to some international donors' countries ceasing to fund projects directly through the Malaysian Government financial systems. I agree with the minister's positive remarks and sentiments, and Patricia Ferguson's remarks on UNICEF were very good. I will remember Sir Roger Moore. I think he was Simon Templer in the saint, and he is doing some saintly work for Malawi along with many others. It is clear that Malawi is going to continue to need significant support, and that is why we are also proud of the work that the UK Department for International Development is undertaking. As Murdo Fraser stated, it has committed around £90 million funding this year alone as part of a package of support worth up to £360 million between 2011 and 2015. The UK is one of the world's most generous donor nations to Malawi. The UK Government correctly wants to support wealth creation and economic growth in Malawi, and it is backing a new private sector development programme that will support agriculture, diversification, and address financing constraints to growing businesses. Another big part of Scotland's special relations with Malawi is the outstanding work done there by Scottish charity, Mary's Meals. This is a local charity for me at home, based in Dalmally, my local village, and it is founded by my truly inspirational constituent, Magnus McFarlane Barrow. Mary's Meals each day gives almost 690,000 children in Malawi a meal when they attend primary schools or under six centres. Mary's Meals flagship programme began in Malawi in 2002, and they are investing £5.36 million in Malawi this year alone, with around 75 per cent of this spent on purchasing maize and soya from 20,000 small holder farmers providing a rather income to thousands of families and multiplying the benefits of their programme throughout the country. This indeed is added value. Their programmes are based on strong partnerships with the school, the children, the local community, a response for delivering and managing their programmes, and the food is prepared and served by tens of thousands of community volunteers. School feeding is a recognised social safety net which encourages vulnerable hungry children to enrol in and attend school, and by providing the meal, Mary's Meals meets hungry children's immediate needs, and by encouraging them to go to school it meets their long-term educational needs. All of this is possible because of a massive grassroots movement of supporters in Scotland, which is also growing globally. As Sarah Boyack mentioned, how important is the people-to-people element of Scottish Malawi relationship, and I totally agree with her. The 20,000 active supporters of Mary's Meals in Scotland. In conclusion, we welcome today's debate and we look forward to progress being made in Malawi, and I support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name. Thank you very much. I now call on Siobhan McMahon at six minutes, please. I'm pleased to take part in today's debate, celebrating Scotland's relationship with Malawi, and I welcome the minister's funding announcement this afternoon. As the minister knows, I have some reservations about how previous monies have been allocated by the Scottish Government, and I know that he appreciates my concerns regarding this. I would hope that the concerns that I've previously expressed will not become an issue this time and that all applications will be treated on their own individual merit. The debate this afternoon has been a good one. It's allowed us to once again talk about that special relationship that we, Scots, have with our friends in Malawi. It's allowed some of us who have visited Malawi to talk about our experiences and memories that have shaped our vision of the country. Today's debate has also allowed members to talk about the local projects running in their areas, either church groups, schools or the many spears of the voluntary sector. It's by sharing examples like those that we begin to understand just how strong our relationship with Malawi is. On Sunday, I attended my local parish, St Bernadette's and Motherwell, for Mass. It was not unusual that the mass was about Malawi, given that our parish has designated the first Sunday of every month as Malawi Sunday, meaning that there's always a display in the porch and prayers are offered for the country. What was unusual was that it was a Malawian priest taking the service. The mass was said by the parish priest of St Anne's in Namalinga, Malawi. Both parishes have a formal partnership that was established last September, following a visit to St Anne's parish as part of a classrooms for Malawi project by my parish priest, Father Stephen Rayleigh. My parish has now established a partnership team within our community and on a parish 50-50 club with a monthly draw to provide a stable income for that project. The local primary school of St Bernadette's has also established a link with St Anne's primary and continued to learn from one another. That is just another example of the tremendous work that ordinary people are doing on a daily basis to make sure that the relationship that our country has with Malawi continues to go from strength to strength. In the previous debate in Malawi a few short months ago, I spoke about the conditions many female prisoners experience in the country. I spoke about amnesty international concerns regarding the country's human rights record and asked that the Scottish Government press upon the Malawian Government that they have a lot more to do in terms of their human rights and equality record. As I stated in the previous debate, it is to be welcomed at both the Scottish and the UK Governments to give large amounts of funding to Malawi, but with that money there should be responsibility and I can think of no greater area than that. Recently, St Margaret's high school in Airdrie was visited by a woman who had been freed from prison as a result of the actions of one of the school's pupils. Lauren Strain during a visit to Malawi last June paid for a lawyer for an unjustly convicted woman resulting in her release from prison. The Malawian woman had been jailed after her son died from an infected wound received during a fight with his brother. Locked up in a run-down prison for her son's death, the woman gave birth to a girl on Christmas day. After hearing her story, Lauren paid £40 for a lawyer and within a few days the Malawian mother was released along with her new-born child. Lauren carried out that act not for praise but because she could see the injustice of what is currently taking place in prisons across Malawi. That small act by Lauren has made a huge difference to that woman and her family and we should be able to build on that. The elections in May of this year provide us this opportunity to start afresh in many areas and to re-establish some of the areas that we may not have been getting right previously. I hope that this is an opportunity that the Scottish Government will seize. Members have also previously heard me speak about the fantastic work that Courtbridge charity Aiming Higher in Malawi does. I will not reiterate many of the points that I mentioned in relation to them. However, I wanted to let the chamber know that two projects with charity are currently undertaking and I hope that they will get the Scottish Government's support for their endeavours. Aiming Higher in Malawi and St Margaret's High School have set up a Catholic Women's Co-operative in Macoza. That was a result of a meeting with a young HIV positive woman, Ruth Samson, who was being sponsored by the St Margaret's pupils. Ruth was an outcast of the village, but through her relationship with the generous Scottish pupils who had visited Malawi a number of times over the years, the community was saved. Thanks to the fundraising efforts, Ruth now has a new house, with a painting by a local Malawian artist on the side of it. As a result of the co-operative, the villagers have managed to grow enough crops to feed themselves and with a surplus left over to sell. The Scottish Catholic Observer have reported that, when the Macoza women were asked to start at the start of the project, what was their greatest need? They asked for a shrine to praise God and decided to pray for their friends in Scotland every day for a year. Their faith, they said, had encouraged them to produce wonders and extended their thanks and prayers to all their Scottish friends. The second project that Aiming Higher in Malawi had been working on with the help of North Lanarkshire province, Jim Robertson, is to help disabled children in the country. In my last speech, I spoke about the disadvantages that disabled children face when growing up in Malawi. However, the wheelchairs for Malawi programme supports children from the very poorest rural areas with proper medical assessment, the purchase and fitting of wheelchairs, prosthetics, footwear and crutches, and gives them the tools that will help them achieve their life's goals. In May this year, Jim Robertson heard a gala dinner that has raised over £20,000 for the project, but we can do more. I have already passed on the information DVD to the minister about the project and I hope that that is something that he will look to throw his support behind. Finally, the global millennium development goals are due to expire next year. The United Nations is currently negotiating the new framework. Although much progress has been made in recent years, the fact remains that one in eight people around the world continue to grow hungry each and every day. We have to make sure that the new framework tackles the statistic and makes it one that we never have to mention again. Skiaf, of course, the new framework to have a co-ordinated international action with each and every state playing its part, not just those in the global south. I hope that the Scottish Government will support such a framework and work with its colleagues in the UK Government to finally eradicate food poverty once and for all. Thank you. I know that it has been a bit of a shorter debate because of various statements and so on, but I have really enjoyed it. I thank all the members for their contributions that they have made. It is one of those rare topics, and I have the pleasure of introducing it to this Parliament a couple of times now, Malawi, that brings everybody together regardless of political parties. Although they have advice to give, and quite rightly in terms of being a critical friend, it is amazing that the whole chamber can come together and praise each other in a giant loving that lasts at least an hour, if not any longer than that. Let me also give credit to previous administrations. I am a great fan of all the work that Jack McConnell did, but the whole administration that was behind him at that time in terms of re-establishing that relationship with Malawi into his credit. Lord McConnell is happy to take phone calls whenever I need some advice on that relationship, so well done for that relationship. Many people here have spoken about the relationship needing to be more than just aid in that relationship that we have had with Malawi in terms of helping the poorest in the world through NGO-funded projects. I want to touch upon some of those themes. Siobhan McMahon and Patricia Ferguson and their contributions as well as some others made reference to human rights and the importance of equality in raising those. I think that that is absolutely correct. I think that Patricia Ferguson used the phrase, critical friend. That is exactly what we have to be. The Government condemns human rights abuses wherever they occur and exist. In my meeting with the Minister for Youth and Sport, I mentioned Malawi's human rights. I mentioned the fact that Scotland is a tolerant country, an open country and one that believes in equality. I pointed to some of those steps that we have taken in the same-sex marriage legislation and others and said that we understand that, of course, Malawi is operating in a regional context. Scotland and Malawi is on a journey. We want them to make progress. We are partners and willing to be partners in our human rights agencies, and civic society organisations would work with theirs to help them to further make progress that is much needed indeed, so she welcomed that message. I can give you a reassurance that was done. Patricia Ferguson is also absolutely correct to make mention of the numbers that are involved in the relationship. The Scottish Malawi partnership is an organisation that has a great amount of time and affection for it. It does a fantastic amount of work. There are 400,000 people between Scotland and Malawi that are involved in that relationship. It is just incredible that the Scottish Malawi partnership now has more than 700 members as part of the partnership. The Malawi-Scotland partnership has broken the 100-member barrier. That should be applauded. I was happy to accept both amendments, as I said, in that collaborative spirit. Very much we work closely with Difford, based in Malawi. I have met the head of Difford in Malawi to discuss how we might work even closer. I met the former. He was moved in the reshuffle, former Minister of International Development, Alan Duncan, on this matter when he was in post as well. That will continue, regardless, frankly, of the constitutional setup that we have post-September 18. That will continue, because we have those joint goals of lifting the poorest out of poverty in Malawi. I have always been fair to giving credit to Difford as well. Having met its members of staff, the work in Abercrombie House, of the good work that they do, I think that Patricia Ferguson was right to make mention that, as much as we can complement some of the work that Difford does, we provide a complement for Difford and some of the work that it does. We have been noted in the International Development Select Committee in the House of Commons in its final report, which I gave evidence in terms of Scottish independence that we have a fantastic relationship with the Scottish Government in regards to—maybe I added in the word fantastic—paraphrasing a good relationship with our NGOs. They said that Difford could learn and take a leaf out of the book in terms of the Scottish Government and how we approach and how we work with civic society. NGOs also agree, of course, wholeheartedly with Murdo Fraser and the Conservatives' amendment. Although a full credit, although the UK Government has been working with Malawi Government in relation to civic governance, the credit, of course, we would agree overwhelmingly for the peaceful democratic elections that would have to go to the people of Malawi who have done well in their transition. You are right that Murdo Fraser was also correct that Scots are, I would say, extra generous when it comes to international development. Not only do we contribute through our tax money to the UK's budget, which is met to 0.7 per cent, but also they contribute towards our own efforts up here in Scotland. That gives me fantastic pride. A number of members touched upon the various facets of the relationship that we have with Malawi and I will try to rattle through some of those as well. Sport was mentioned in my discussions with Maureen Watt's pair, the Minister for Youth and Sport. I said that we can do more to develop that relationship. The SFA is doing some projects in Malawi, but I think that there is a lot more that we can do. I think that Malawi became a lot of people's second team during the Commonwealth Games because of the rapturous applause that they got and the welcome that they got during the opening ceremony. There was a close run affair for me, Pakistan for my father and Kenya for my mother, and then the Tongalese athlete that came out with the Celtic top. It was a difficult one for me to choose, but Malawi was definitely there. Murdo Fraser touched on commerce as did another of other members, Christina McKelvie, and others. I just wanted to say a little bit more on that. He mentioned the three seas of Dr Llewings and Christianity commerce and civilisation. Christianity—we can debate that one because, apparently, he only converted one person and even that person became a lapsed Christian, but his Christianity, I'm sure, was espoused in other ways and other methods. Commerce 1 is really important. Not only was Dr David Llewings strong on that, but one of the first European companies to set up in Malawi was the African Lakes Company, John and Frederick Moyer in the 1870s. In fact, Mandala House, which is named where the headquarters was in Blantyre and still is, although the company is now dissolved, is still pictures of Renfield Street where the headquarters were in Glasgow. It was called Mandala and renamed Mandala, which many even senior members of government and former president, Joyce Bander, her mother, worked at the Mandala Corporation, still resonates with ethical and fair trade, because that company was also set up to defeat the slave trade. Serah Boyack touched upon the energy relationship, and I think that she made her points very well and very strongly. Myself and Paul Heal, the wheelhouse, were delighted to host and take part in the European launch of the United Nations decade of sustainable energy for all during the Commonwealth Games here in Glasgow. We had a very passionate speech and panel discussion with the UN Secretary for General Special Representative, Dr Ymkella, to deliver his keynote speech. Trade, I have somewhat mentioned, but a fair trade Serah Boyack also touched upon, and we have given our commitment to support that in any way that we can, of course, helping for Scotland to become the second fair trade nation in the world. When I was using coffee, I know that it is already being traded here. In the business conference that was jointly hosted for the Commonwealth Games by the Prime Minister and the First Minister, I hosted a panel session on trade and investment with the Commonwealth and how we can lift those countries out of poverty by closer trade links, so I am happy to commit to doing that. Richard Simpson touched upon the health, as I think spoke, with great authority in that regard and great depth. I agree with much of what he was saying. The temptation, though, for a Scottish Government be we as part of the UK or, frankly, even if we were independent, the temptation might be to try to do too much to be everything to everybody. I think that he was right to say that there are a couple of narrow fields of health that you can concentrate on and actually make a big impact. When he touched upon infectious diseases, I mentioned that in the international development committee when I was giving evidence. Jeremy LeFroy MP wrote me a nice card, because he is very involved in the global fund in tackling infectious diseases, to say that he thought that our approach on that was to be welcomed. Tori, the minister is winding up. No, I am sorry. I cannot take an intervention. The winding up, in conclusion, I would like to reiterate what everybody has said about the depth and strength of the relationship up and down the country across all education sectors, across the health sector, across faith groups and so on and so forth. Malawi, as is known as the warm heart of Africa, gave me great pride when the Malawian High Commissioner said that Scotland was the warm heart of Europe through their humanitarianism and through our compassion. Long may it continue and thank all the members across the chamber for their continued support. Thank you. We move now to the next item of business, which is a statement by Ken MacAskill on policing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement, and there should be therefore no interventions or interruptions. I recognise that we have moved early to this statement, but members are well aware now that we follow on from debates to statements. I take note that there are some members, particularly front benches, who are not present for the statement itself. I will take that into account when I decide who is going to be called to speak. I now call on Kenny MacAskill, Mr MacAskill, who has got 10 minutes. I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to Parliament on the use of armed officers within the routinely unarmed police service of Scotland of which we are so rightly proud. Let me take this opportunity to thank the police service for their contribution for what has been the best of our Commonwealth Games. They did so in a manner that was friendly and welcoming in the manner that was displayed by the city of Glasgow. Indeed, two officers even played a starring cameo role in the opening ceremony. Scotland is rightly proud that its police officers conduct their daily business unarmed. That has always been the case, and let me make it clear to Parliament that that is how we intend it will remain. However, armed officers have, for a very considerable period of time, provided support for police colleagues and security for citizens. However, the public should be assured that the number of officers authorised to carry weapons is low and limited. Only 275 officers out of the 17,318 officers employed by Police Scotland are currently deployed on firearms duties. That is less than 1.6 per cent of our police force. It should also be made clear that those officers operate in a shift system, are subject to extraction and, indeed, holiday entitlement that will therefore only be a fraction of that already low number who are on duty at any one time. Gun crime in Scotland is rare, but in the first year of Police Scotland, specialist firearms units attended 1,300 incidents across the whole of the country, including more than 100 in the Highlands. It is not just gun crime in firearms incidents that they deal with. They are called out to deal with incidents where there is a significant threat. Those incidents can involve knives, samurai swords, machetes or even broken bottles. The presence of those officers in such situations is necessary for the safety of colleagues and public alike. Therefore, it is essential that the chief constable had the operational flexibility that he needs to properly protect the public and the safety of his officers. The decision for the deployment of armed officers in the granting of standing firearms authority within a police force that is recognised as being one that goes about its day-to-day business unarmed is therefore an operational matter for the chief constable. This has always been the case. That is how it was before the inception of Police Scotland and that is how it remains. The current standing firearms authority was given by the chief constable after an assessment of a range of factors, including evidence and intelligence. The authority is not new. Three of the former constituencies, Strathclyde, Tayside and indeed Northern, had endorsed that position prior to the inception of the service. That is also the approach that is taken by 42 out of 43 of the services in England and Wales. Presiding Officer, it was clear when we debated the legislation in this Parliament a couple of years ago that operational independence was paramount. From all sides of the chambers, it was made clear that our democratic structures required that chief constable had operational independence and was free from political interference. However, given the powers of police officers and the need to ensure the protection of the rights of citizens, safeguards were built in. Firstly, to ensure the separation of powers between Government and police, the Scottish Police Authority was established by this Parliament. It is for the authority to appoint the chief constable and to hold him or her to account. The Scottish Police Authority has a broad membership with a wide range of experience. Secondly, the Parliament decided that as we were moving to a single service for Scotland, it was appropriate that the Parliament of Scotland had oversight. It is for that reason that the sub-committee of the Justice Committee was established. The policing sub-committee is able to scrutinise all aspects of policing. However, it is not just those safeguards but additional checks and balances that have been built in. Firstly, there is the police investigation and review commissioner. That has been established under the act to deal not simply with any complaints against the police, but to deal with actions of the police. Any use of a firearm will automatically be remitted to him. Secondly, we are a Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. They are long established and have a great experience not just of advising the service but the Government on the quality of policing and indeed the nature of police activities. HMICS is independent from the chief constable and from Government and is able to advise without fear or favour. He provides a further level of scrutiny of police officers irrespective of rank and the decisions that they take. That includes all aspects of operational decisions, including standing firearms authority. Thirdly, a standing firearms authority is reviewed quarterly. That ensures that a regular and indeed contemporary basis for the granting is there of what is exceptional authority for a police officer in a routinely unarmed constabulary. The next review is due next month. The chief constable has already confirmed publicly that, in addition to considering available information and intelligence, he will take on board views and representations that have been made. I welcome that commitment by the chief. I welcome that further assurance will be provided by HMICS on this occasion and, as normal, the report of HMICS will be published and available to this Parliament. I believe that the public understands and accepts a need for a small number and I stress a small number of police officers to be authorised to carry firearms and for the chief constable to have operational independence over their deployment in use. However, I also understand the concern of the public that we do not slip into a situation where officers become armed as a matter of routine practice, which would clearly go beyond the operational matters into matters of policy, and I want to give the Parliament and the public my assurance that this will not happen. Following discussion with the chief constable, I can confirm that he has agreed to provide quarterly reports to the SPA and the parliamentary sub-committee on the number of officers currently deployed on firearms duties. As an additional measure in reassurance to Parliament, I can announce that should the number of officers deployed on firearms duties routinely exceed 2 per cent of the total numbers of the officers in Scotland, then the chief constable will notify the SPA and the justice secretary of the fact. There may, of course, be specific occasions when there is a need to increase numbers on a short-term basis in order to respond to specific risks and threats, and we fully support the chief constable's operational duty to take immediate decisions that reflect any such threats. In conclusion, I once again state that we should be proud of the fact that our police officers are routinely unarmed despite the challenges and dangers that they face on a daily basis. However, I believe that it is necessary in the world in which we live for the safety of officers and indeed members of the public when a very limited number are there capable of providing both firearms and taser support. Armed officers do a difficult job and one of which we should be proud. In a democracy, it is right that it should be the decision of the chief constable and not a political minister or party. However, it is also important that there should be sufficient safeguards and checks and balances. It is for that reason that we have the Scottish Police Authority and the Sub-Committee on Policing. It is for that reason that we have the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constability for Scotland and a standing firearms authority that is reviewed on a quarterly basis. I hope, Presiding Officer, that Parliament will join me in thanking not just the officers for their service during the Commonwealth Games but for the job that they do on a daily basis in their communities, the length and breadth of Scotland. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raising a statement. I intend to allow around about 20 minutes for questions after which we will go on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members wished to ask a question of the cabinet secretary where to press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Graham Pearson. I am obliged, Presiding Officer. By explanation for some who may have been slightly late in entering the chamber, they would have been waiting for the belated arrival of the cabinet secretary's statement, which was very late in delivery. Can I say that two wrongs do not make a right when we move on to the statement in the chamber? I expect members to be here on the issue of the statement not coming. The member will be aware that Opposition spokesperson's receive a ministerial statement no less than one hour in advance of the statement that we made. That is the convention. I am concerned to hear that this was not observed in relation to today's statement on policing. It was also not the case in relation to the statement on data retention. This may be something that Opposition business managers wish to discuss with the Minister for Parliamentary Business if he can continue your question. Given the substantial public described and his evidence reluctance to share with Parliament, what legislation demands that he regards such non-urgent policy shifts to be maintained as solely the remit of the chief constable in terms of an assertion of operational independence and what boundaries apply in the application of operational dependence? Only on 23 March this year, an officer unintentionally fired a gun in a police station and was deemed to be negligent in an accident that was preventable. Will he initiate a review of the policy by ensuring that the SPA plays an effective role in governance, oversight and transparency, given the declared discomfort of some board members? If not, what is the point of a police authority? What happened to the much-acclaimed consultation process at local level before such changes? I very much regret the inability to have the statement sent in there. I apologise for that discourtesy, I do not know the reasons for it. With regard to the particular instance of the discharge of the firearm in a police station, Mr Pearson will know that that was in fact obviously remitted to the perk. It was reviewed by the perk and indeed the perk statement has indeed been published and Police Scotland will of course take on board the recommendations and advice that has been made. What I can say is that we have built in as a result of the debate that went on both in the country and through this Parliament when we were setting up the single national service. That is why we have the SPA and the policing subcommittee, a matter that Mr Pearson championed. Why we have additional section balances in terms of the perk, HMICS and a quarterly review. I have spoken today to the chair of the SPA and he is happy with the statement that has been given and the action that has been taken. I would hope that Mr Pearson would continue to contribute, as he does, as a member of that policing committee to the scrutiny of the police. If he has comments to make about the SPA that he should do so to the chair, to my other members, that they do meet in public on a monthly basis and I am sure that Vic Emory and his colleagues would be happy to meet and discuss their work with him. Margaret Mitchell. I thank the cabinet secretary for at least some advance notice of the statement. Throughout Scotland, there are police officers carrying firearms while responding to everyday's duties and is deeply disturbing for the public at large. That represents a change in policy and the fears that have been heightened in the public by the unacceptable lack of transparency and accountability in particular on that issue. Cabinet Secretary, it has been consistently acknowledged in this chamber that someone who carries a knife, for whatever reason, is in danger of using that weapon or becoming a victim of knife crime. It is an interesting analogy with the arming of police because there is a real apprehension that if police officers routinely carry a weapon, that weapon will be used in a manner other than that intended. Can the cabinet secretary answer the following? How are those officers who carry firearms selected? How many police in Scotland have been trained in the carrying and use of firearms? Finally, what form has this training taken and how frequently has it taken place and is it due to take place in the future? First, I will put on record the fact that I take pride, as I think everybody in the chamber does, that police officers in Scotland, in the main, routinely go around unarmed. That is the norm. It is a very limited number in response to Margaret Mitchell's questions, but those officers, the overwhelming majority, 98 per cent of police officers in Scotland do so and sometimes face very difficult and dangerous positions, and we should pay tribute to that and take great pride in that they do so without routine ability to access firearms. There are, though, and have always been officers who have been routinely armed. That is not a new policy, as I indicated in the initial opening statement to Ms Mitchell. That is the policy that was operated by three out of the eight former legacy forces, Strathclyde, Tayside and, indeed, Northern. What the chief constable has done is ensure that that goes across the country. In terms of how those officers are selected, I have to say that that is an operational matter. I do not know. I have no doubt that there are significant checks carried out that they are on going on a regular basis, but recruitment both into the police and, indeed, into specialist areas within the police service is, I think, correctly a matter for the chief constable. There are over 500 officers who are authorised firearms officers, but only 275 officers have standing firearms authority. Who are those officers who have been seen by members of the public? Who are a small fraction of that 275? As an administration, we appreciate the concerns, which is why not only do we irritate the checks and balances that we have, but we are ensuring further safeguards so that the public can be reassured. There is not a routinely armed police, and there will never be under this administration. Eileen Murray, thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As the chamber knows, I chair both the sub-committee in policing and the justice committee, and I note the references and the statement to that sub-committee, and indeed the chief inspector of constabulary. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the sub-committee correspondence to the SP on the issue of armed police and the responses there, too, and the issue therefore remains live before that sub-committee. Is he also aware that, in two weeks' time, the chief inspector of constabulary will be giving evidence that the justice committee is no doubt armed police will arise in? Does he therefore agree that there is parliamentary scrutiny, but will he also respond to any relevant issues arising from that scrutiny by both the sub-committee and the justice committee? I cannot give the member that assurance and rules, convener, and indeed, as the member is asking, we will obviously respond to that as an administration. I am glad that HMICS is going to her committee. I will be meeting with myself shortly. We welcome the fact that Parliament established not just the Scottish Police Authority, but, as we now have a national service serving all of Scotland, that there should be a role for the national parliament. That was a matter quite correctly championed by Graham Pearson, and I give due credit to him. I am grateful for all those members who serve on the committee chaired by Christine Graham. I know that it is met on 21 occasions. I am aware that the chief constable has appeared before it on three times, and on six occasions, those deputies or assistants have attended on his behalf. I have no doubt that they will receive the same welcome and indeed challenge that HMICS will face in due course. I am grateful for that role. It is an important role to ensure that we have oversight and scrutiny as well as avoiding political interference by a cabinet secretary who represents a political party. Armed police were never used on routine operations in Dumfries and Galloway prior to the advent of Police Scotland. Once again, there has been no consultation or even communication with the local community about this major change in practice. What information will be made available to elected representatives about the deployment of armed police in their wards or constituencies? Will we, not with a desire to interfere politically as I was accused of doing by the chief constable a couple of weeks ago, but on behalf of our constituents and their concerns, be kept informed about when and how armed police officers have been involved locally in patrols and routine incidents? I have met the armed response officers in Dumfries and Galloway and those who now serve within the Police Service of Scotland. I am grateful for the service that they do. On past occasions, I paid tribute to them when they also went to lend support to officers south of the border when there was a tragedy and a significant firearms incident. I have also paid tribute to them more recently when they have had to address firearms incidents and armed robberies, for example, in the member's constituency in Dumfries. It is important that there is oversight and scrutiny. The Police Service has particular powers that are not available to the ordinary citizen. That is why, when the legislation was passed, we ensured that those safeguards and those checks and balances were there. I do not think that I need to reiterate it. Equally, we are also ensured that there is engagement at local level between the police and the local commander and, indeed, other ranks there with those who serve in the local policing committee in whatever manner the local authority has set it up. In addition to that local engagement, I am aware—and I think that it is a matter of public knowledge—that the chief has gone out of his way to engage with councillors, for example, in the north of Scotland, where they have expressed concerns. I am grateful to him for that, so I think that we have that appropriate balance, and we have also preserved the police from political partiality. When I queried why, up to 20 minutes ago, we have not received this statement, I was advised that it was still being worked on. That does not demonstrate to me a confident Government. It suggests that there is some turmoil behind the scenes on this. The minister referenced that the authority for armed officers will be reviewed. Any decent and sensible way forward would follow a strategic firearms and risk assessment, and that in turn should be determined by future demands and threats. It stretches credibility to ask us to believe that the threats and risks across Scotland are all the same. In the absence of any evidence this afternoon from the minister, this is surely disproportionate to the risk. His statement has not gone far enough, and we must have a full review of the decision to move to overtly armed officers deployed on routine duties across our towns and villages. That is not about how many it is about that change in deployment. I would urge the cabinet secretary to make this the last time he is dragged to the chamber to belatedly react to the citizens' concerns. I again express my regret to Alison McInnes that the statement was not available. I do not know the reason for that. I can assure that I have had it before me for some time, but I do not know what was on-going. First of all, the chief constable correctly carries out the assessment. It is reviewed on a three-monthly basis. That is guidance and guidelines that go across the border. Given the significance of firearms, given that we take pride, as I said earlier, on a routinely unarmed police force, those things should only be done on the basis of intelligence proper analysis, and that has to be dealt with by the chief constable. Firstly, we have a three-monthly review. As I have said, that review will take place next month coincidentally. Equally, as I said, the chief constable has taken and said publicly that he will take on board the views. Now, it is doubtless not just of councillors sharing Ms McInnes's political affiliation north of the border, but also comments that will be made in the chamber today. Equally, the decision on this is correctly made by the chief constable. He is a person who has the information, the intelligence and the analysis. I do not have it. In many instances, it would be quite wrong for it to be given to me, but he has the experience and that information before him. However, because of the significance and the infringement, sometimes perhaps to civil liberties and certainly the alarm it can cause, we ensure that those numbers are limited and we ensure that we have the safeguards and the checks and balances. However, this is a matter for the chief constable held to account by the appropriate authorities that we have enshrined. Kevin Stewart, followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Having served on a police board for some 13 years, I can say wholeheartedly that, with the local policing committees, the Scottish Police Authority and the sub-committee, we now have greater scrutiny than we have ever had before. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to provide the detail of the training that is provided to specialist officers and what independent oversight is in place in relation to that training? Some of those aspects are obviously operational, but what I can say to the members is that all authorised firearms officers are trained rigorously to the standards to find in the UK national police firearms training curriculum. That involves initial training and frequently refresher training, and it is a significant investment by Police Scotland. The oversight that the member asked upon is exercised through the College of Policing, which ensures that the training delivered is consistent throughout the UK and meets the standards of authorised professional practice for armed policing. I concur with the member that, in fact, we now have, as I say, greater scrutiny. In practice, I can say that UK services, including Police Scotland, deliver training locally, but they are indefendantly assessed by the College of Policing to ensure that their training delivery meets that national standard. Sandra White, by Patricia Fergus. The cabinet secretary has said in his statement that the standing firearms authority reviewed quarterly indeed is due to meet next month. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the chief constable will take public concerns into account on an on-going basis? I can reaffirm to the chamber as I said in the initial statement that the chief constable has made it clear that not only is the standing firearms authority to be reviewed anyway in September, but he has made it clear that he will take on board not just the review, but those comments that have been made and may continue to be made to him up to and until when he makes his reporter review. As I said in my statement, as an additional safeguard, should the number of officers with standing firearms authority at any one time exceed 2% of the total number of officers, other than some instance that has arised if it is to be routine, then the chief constable will inform the SPA, the committee and me. The cabinet secretary has been at great pains to say that three of the former constabularies, Strathclyde, Tayside and Northern, had endoshed the position of their being a standing firearms authority prior to the inception of the new service. I wonder if he can confirm that the police boards in those three areas were of that view and gave that authorisation to the chief constable to bring about that change in policy. I do not think that I can be asked to answer for something that is not my responsibility. Those were the procedures carried out by those three authorities. They signed them off. I think that if Ms Ferguson has caused for concerns, she should raise it with those members who served upon that. All I can reiterate is that the arming of police officers is not new, it is not routine and it is certainly the intention of this administration to ensure that we never have a routine armed police presence on every street or in every community. We take pride in our police officers, sometimes with great bravery, going out at their own risk equally to ensure their safety and indeed general public safety. We have to have access to a very limited number and thank for a very low number of specialist officers. I am sorry that the cabinet secretary seems to be suggesting that there may be criticism of the bravery of individual officers, that is not the case. However, what I was querying from his statement was the fact that he prayed in aid, the fact that three of those authorities had endorsed that position prior to the inception of the new force and now tells us that that is not a matter for him and that I should take it up with those authorities. It is part of the cabinet secretary's statement, Presiding Officer, and therefore he should be able to stand that information up or with Troy. That is not a point of order. Rodd Campbell, followed by John Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Legislation rightly ensures that the chief constable is operationally independent so that decisions on policing are made free of political interference. However, could the cabinet secretary provide further detail on the role of the Scottish Police Authority that has in holding the chief constable to account in relation to the deployment of armed officers? Cabinet Secretary? I would agree with a member that decisions on policing should be free from political interference. I think that that would be a sad day for democracy. It was one of the main issues that we debated and discussed when Parliament passed the bill. The chief constable is, as I stated, accountable to the SPA and not to ministers. That is entirely appropriate. The SPA challenges to support the chief constable to ensure the delivery of the best possible policing. I have outlined the role the SPA will play in ensuring the appropriate use of armed officers. I have spoken to the chair of the authority earlier today, and he is happy and supportive of the proposals. He welcomes the contribution that will be made in relation to the information that is provided to him. Indeed, if the member or any other member in the chamber wishes to make suggestions, the SPA will be happy to engage with them and to take on board any thoughts or views that they may have. John Finnie, followed by Christian Aller. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise to you and the cabinet secretary for missing his opening a few words and to thank him for that statement. Cabinet Secretary, you made reference to the Highlands and Islands in Northern in more than one occasion, and there has been various versions of who indeed when was responsible for the fundamental change to the very successful policing style. This is not about skills, it is not about numbers. Three armed officers attending a minor incident in Burness High Street is not what the public want to see. It is also inconceivable that a risk assessment would change at midnight for five of the constituent forces. Indeed, that is lazy management. I wonder if the cabinet secretary will agree to publish the decision-making process behind that change policy for each of the constituent forces and place that in SPICE. That would be one way of advancing your view that local policing was considered there. It is certainly not my view and it is certainly not the public's view. Cabinet Secretary? Well, I do not have that information. The information that would apply to previous police boards belongs to police boards or indeed to their constituent members. It is not something that the Government would routinely have access to. That is an issue that perhaps the member would be better raising with council colleagues. I do understand and we do take on board the concerns that people have seen armed officers attending at various incidents. Can I perhaps just say to the member and to the chamber that there was a reference made to an incident in Glasgow last week or a fortnight ago where armed police attended the road traffic incident? Can I say that I saw the information made available by Police Scotland on that? They did that because the armed vehicle was the closest to the incident. When they arrived there, they sought to have others come to relieve them, but because of other pressure in business, no other colleagues were there to get there. One of the three ladies injured had, I think, a broken or dislocated hip. She was in significant pain. The member should perhaps listen to this. The police officer, in my understanding from the report, cradled the lady as she was dealt with by medical staff. They did not wish to be there. They would rather have departed and allowed officers and they could have got back on to other patrolling, but I think that they did the right thing. I think that those officers should be commended, not condemned. Had other officers been available, they would have departed, but I think that it was much better that they took part in assisting the welfare and care of that lady at a road traffic incident than the waved goodbye said that it has nothing to do with us and left her in pain and suffering. First of all, I would like to say that I checked my email box this morning and I did not receive any emails from the public regarding that subject. However, may I ask the cabinet secretary what criteria is applied by Police Scotland deciding to deploy armed officers and what assurances can he give that deployment that will remain proportionate? I think that I can be quite clear that the chief constable has made it quite clear that he does not wish to see any increase, that there may be instances that may arise subject to intelligent analysis, but to ensure that, having discussed matters with him, we have made it quite clear that any increase above 2 per cent would have to be on a routine basis. We would have to be reported to us and indeed to the SPA and the committee. I think that what we are ensuring, though, is that the chief constable is taking on board the evidence and intelligence that he has. He is keeping numbers low and proportionate, he is ensuring that all areas in Scotland are able to be protected and that is our comments that he has made. As I say, I think that the changes that the Police Service of Scotland now offers in providing all areas of Scotland, whether with trunk road policing, dogs, horses or other aspects, is something that we should welcome and support, and armed policing is something that has always been there. What we have to ensure is that the routine bobby on our beat remains unarmed. That is how it will be equally when there may be times that challenge that officer or challenge our communities. Resource and backup, whether for firearms or tasers, must always be available. John Pitland, full by Kevin Macdonald. Presiding Officer, please accept my apologies for being late and missing the cabinet secretary's open remarks. However, Presiding Officer, nobody is arguing against firearms. What is mostly irrelevant in this statement has failed to address why, instead of being available in vehicles, they are now being routinely carried without good cause. Why is this fundamental change in policing being hidden behind an arbitrary 2 per cent figure when the best safeguard is to revert to the previous policy? I go back to the two particular points that I have been making. First of all, Parliament decided quite correctly that decisions on operational matters would be for the chief constable. I think that there was great concern—understandable concern—that a cabinet secretary of whatever political hue may seek to interfere in that basis, we have made it quite clear that the lines of authority are to the Scottish Police Authority and indeed to the parliamentary sub-committee. Equally, we recognise that operational matters are best made by the chief constable, whoever he or she may be, because they are the individual with the information, with the intelligence, we are able to make that risk assessment, so it is for that chief constable at that time to make that decision, held to account here in Parliament by the policing committee, held to account by the Scottish Police Authority who appoint him, and indeed, as I say, I also welcome the additional checks and balances and the commitment that we have made about keeping numbers low to ensure that the people of Scotland can always be reassured that our police in the main are routinely unarmed. I also apologise for my late arrival and not anticipating the early closure of the last debate. The cabinet secretary makes great play of the fact that this radical change in policy predates the establishment of the new police service. Can I ask him to clarify whether it predates his time, as the appointment does as justice secretary for Scotland, and given his inability to point to any public discussion by any police board of this radical change in policy, can I ask him simply to clarify whether he believes there should have been a public discussion of this change in policy before it was implemented? As for the precise timing, Mr McIntosh is not only a member but resides in Strathclyde, the responsibility, the decision was taken by the chief constable of Strathclyde, who was held to account at that stage by the police authority and police board for Strathclyde. It was their decision and it was them who were holding the chief constable to account. My responsibility with regard to the national service came in only subject to the passing of the act, but again, subject to the clear guidance of Parliament quite correctly to ensure that there is no political interference, it is a decision not for Strathclyde board or the legacy forces, it is a decision for the Scottish Police Authority. If Mr McIntosh was not aware when Strathclyde took that, it may be matters that he would wish to raise with political colleagues in his own area. That ends that particular statement. The next item of business is a statement by Ken MacAskill on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act UK legislation. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Ken MacAskill, cabinet secretary, 10 minutes. Presiding Officer, I would like to make a statement about the UK Government's Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which received royal assent on 17 July 2014. I begin by acknowledging the huge level of public interest generated by this piece of Westminster legislation, raising as it did fundamental issues about civil liberties, privacy, security and the role of government. It is in every Government's interest that we combat crime and address security risks, and I am sure that everyone in this chamber will agree with that. A sophisticated criminals and terrorists seek to exploit an ever-changing and rapidly developing telecommunications market, so too must our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies have the tools that they require to keep pace if they are to keep us safe. They need to be able to track down the drug dealers, head off would-be terrorists, pursue human traffickers, deal with child exploitation and find missing persons. Serious organised criminals and terrorists have no respect for borders. The response from law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and other partners requires a joined-up approach to those threats. Such an approach was demonstrated in response to the events of 30 June 2007, when two terrorists attempted to drive a jeep through the entrance doors of the terminal Glasgow airport. Another example is demonstrated in the case of Esidin Khaled Ahmed Al-Khaladi, who was found to have linked to the Stockholm bombing, which took place in December 2010, and again joint working proved essential in bringing this individual to justice. What is clear here is that when it comes to tackling these issues we are all on the same side, but this situation cannot be used to explain away a need for proper scrutiny of powerful legislative changes and the tools that are needed to protect us must not be left unguarded by parliaments or used in an unfettered way. The provisions in the data retention and investigatory powers act passed on July 17th are reserved, but they extend to Scotland and have implications for justice in Scotland. The subject matter relates to powers that enable law enforcement agencies in Scotland to prevent and detect crime and prevent acts of terrorism, communications data, the who, the when, the where and the how of communication, not its content, is an essential element of Police Scotland's capability to respond to a wide range of operational issues and can be used evidentially by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and can provide evidence that can be considered by the courts. It is clear to me that there was always going to be a significant level of interest in Scotland in those matters. That is why we are discussing it today. It is regrettable to say the least that the Scottish Government was not given the opportunity that it should have been afforded to properly consider and express views on this very significant piece of legislation. In May 2010, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced that he wanted an agenda of respect, and I quote, this agenda is about parliaments working together of governing with respect both because I want to try and win Scotland's respect as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom closed quotes. The level of respect appears not to have been afforded to the Scottish Government on this occasion. A joint announcement on the intention to legislate was made by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on the morning of Thursday 10 July. That was followed by a ministerial statement from the Home Secretary Theresa May later that same morning. I received a copy of the draft bill by email that day, provided in advance of a hastily arranged telephone conversation that I was to have with James Brokenshire, the Minister for Security and Immigration. That ignores the proper processes that are expected from a Westminster Government when passing legislation that extends to Scotland. However, it was not only the Scottish Government who were denied the opportunity to have their say. Elected representatives in the UK Parliament were denied the time and opportunities that the bill merited to consider and scrutinise its provisions. As members in this chamber will no doubt be aware, the data retention and investigatory powers bill was subject to Westminster's emergency procedures. The bill had its first reading in the Commons on Monday 14 July and achieved royal assent on Thursday 17 July. The reasons for this fast-track approach were provided in the Home Secretary's parliamentary statement on 10 July, a judgment by the European Court of Justice called into question the legal basis upon which the UK Government required communication service providers in the UK to retain communications data. The second reason was an increasingly pressing need to put beyond out the application of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act regarding the obligation on communication service providers to comply with legal obligations irrespective of where those businesses are based. There was a period of three months between the European Court's judgment and the announcement of measures to address them. During the subsequent questions on the Home Secretary's statement on 10 July, the Conservative member of Parliament, Davis Davis, said, and I quote, The Home Secretary has justified rushing this bill through the House on the basis of an emergency. However, the case was put to the ECJ some time ago, and it took some time to reach its conclusion on 8 April, so if there is an emergency, it was a predictable one on 8 April, and I end quote. In the three months between 8 April and 10 July, I would suggest that there was ample opportunity for the respect that David Cameron described so fulsomly in 2010 to have been paid to this Government and Parliament. Labour MP Tom Watson also criticised the process, and he said, and I quote, I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will get her bill through next week, but the price will be a perception that it is the result of a last-minute deal between elites with little scrutiny by Parliament or civic society. The Scottish Government is supportive of Police Scotland having access to the information that it requires in order to keep communities safe. However, I believe that, where the power of the state impinges on the liberty of its citizens, it is imperative that elected representatives must always have an opportunity to debate the issues. We have said in Scotland's future that, in an independent Scotland, legislation will set out clear arrangements for investigatory powers building on and updating where necessary the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Scotland Act. Planned legislation will ensure that law enforcement agencies have the powers that they need to do their job and keep Scotland safe. While clarifying the limit of those powers and the extent of the controls over them, any new powers will, of course, be fully considered and debated in this chamber. When it comes to combating international problems such as organised crime and terrorism, we must all pull together. The ability of our law enforcement partners to be able to access and use a full range of investigatory powers is a critical part of our approach to tackling those problems and issues. I find the lack of engagement from the UK Government in this instance regrettable. There was ample time for views to have been exchanged and sufficient opportunity for the respect that David Cameron spoke about in 2010 to have been paid to each of us sitting here today and to the people of Scotland who elected us to represent them. Thank you. I just say to members that I need to finish at 5 o'clock, Elaine Murray, followed by Margaret Mitchell. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, but I received it only 10 minutes before I had to sprint to the chamber, so I am unable to do so. The justice system is a balance between individual freedoms and restrictions on those freedoms to ensure the public safety and to preserve the human rights of other individuals. Undoubtedly, the UK Government did not handle the consequences of the ruling by the European Court of Justice last April as well as it ought to have done. However, it is not the only Government to have encountered issues when trying to rush through emergency legislation, as I am sure the cabinet secretary will recall. However, does the cabinet secretary accept that the legislation passed by the UK Parliament in July contains greater safeguards and controls on the original act, including cutting the number of agencies that can access retained data and enabling the information commissioner to audit the integrity and the deletion of retained data? Does he accept that in this age of social media and electronic communication, information held by internet companies and phone providers can be vital to the investigation and detection, not only of terrorist activities but of atrocities such as child sexual abuse and pedophile rings, as evidenced only yesterday by the arrest of a convicted pedophile in Texas on the basis of material supplied by Google? The cabinet secretary's Westminster colleagues voted against the legislation. Is it there for the case that the SNP Government in an independent Scotland would not permit the tool of data retention to be used? If so, what would it do to protect public safety in this age of electronic communication and to support the human rights of the victims of online abuse? Can I first of all say that no, the Scottish Government accepts that covert work is required north, south of the border in every jurisdiction to keep us safe and secure? I mentioned that in the statement and the same points that I made were replicated and echoed by Elaine Murray. Of course, we require to address those who would bring in flood drugs into our community, who would traffic people, who would perpetrate atrocities that we have seen carried out elsewhere and were sought to be carried out here. We fully accept that there is a basis and justification for that work being carried out. However, there are two points that we have to make. First of all, the process here was not followed. There is a respect agenda that is required to be made to this Government, to this Parliament, to also include the other agencies in Scotland who were, albeit cited in some ways, were not given the opportunity to participate and contribute to the proper scrutiny of parliamentary debate. There is the principle, and, as I said, I have accepted that there is a requirement for this. Equally, I accept that this matter is currently reserved. I think that we have to ensure that we get the balance right. I recognise that, when I met the information commissioner, I pay tribute to him and he is predecessor and I welcome the work that he does. However, in some extent, some of the principle of the bill, I can criticise the process. In some of the principle, I have to say that I side with my Westminster colleagues. I also side both with David Davidson and Tom Watson. Some of that we just do not know. It has been rushed through. Some of that information we must never know because it would compromise the security and safety of investigation and perhaps officers or individuals in the field. However, we do not and did not have an opportunity for the proper scrutiny that was required. I have to say that I contrast some of the information being sought by the member's enisted statement with regard to some of the points that they made in the latter. Margaret Mitchell, followed by Marco Biagic. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Again, I thank the cabinet secretary for the albeit very limited advance sight of this statement. Today, of all days, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will appreciate and agree that, in an ideal world, all legislation and ministerial statements would be introduced at the appropriate time and as soon as possible. However, as Governments of all political persuasions know that this is not always possible, the cadre of emergency legislation in the Scottish Parliament being a case in point. So, the issue before us today is not necessarily the time frame in which the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was introduced, but rather its content. This was emergency legislation brought forward to clarify the legislative framework for certain important investigatory powers to ensure that the UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies can maintain their ability to access telecommunications data. Let's be quite clear that this is data that the police need to investigate criminal activity and to protect the public. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that it was necessary—and he is supportive and principle—of passing this act to ensure that this crucial data, which is a powerful tool to those investigating horrific crimes such as child exploitation and terror lesion, can be accessed and isn't lost, which might have been the case had the legislation not been passed? Does he also agree that the act should cover anyone providing a communication service to customers in the UK, regardless of where that service is based? I think that we are all agreed across the chamber that some of this data has to be accessed. It is a question of proportionality and the question of ensuring that we have sufficient checks and balances and indeed safeguards. The timing issue was not raised by me. I would refer to the quote that I gave to the member in the opening statement. The timing issue was raised by David Davis. He is not a member of the Scottish National Party group in Westminster. He was a former challenger for the leadership of the Conservative Party. It was David Davis—to be fair to Mr Davis, he accepts that some of this is clearly necessary. His point, though, was that this case was put to the ECJ some time ago. It reached its conclusion on 8 April. He made it quite clear that if it was an emergency, it was an emergency that was predictable on 8 April and it was only on 10 July that this was being rushed through Parliament. That goes back, I think, to process. Everybody accepts the principle. It is where you draw the line in terms of the principle, but the process here would seem to me to have failed in respect of the respect agenda. Indeed, arguably, the points being made not simply by my parliamentary colleagues, but by David Davis, Tom Watson and many others, was that there was insufficient opportunity for proper scrutiny in Westminster, and that is where the failure was. Markiplier, do you follow by Willie Rennie? The cabinet secretary has repeatedly referred to the gap between the judgment on 8 April and the bill being announced on 10 July. Presumably, since civil servants would not have just put pen to paper on 10 July, there would have been a process involved in the run-up to that. So can the cabinet secretary confirm when he was first notified, if it was indeed on 10 July, when the bill was already in draft form, and what he would have expected to have had as input to that kind of drafting process? A draft copy of the bill was emailed to me at 10.20 am on Thursday 10 July, which was the day that the UK Government announced its plans at Westminster. To be fair to Mr Brokenshire, he did seek to contact me before the Home Secretary's statement that, because I was on the move with ministerial engagement, I did not speak to him until later in the day. However, the only information, I think, would be fair to say that officials in this working for myself was that something was on the move. That came very late in the day, in days just before, and the only intimation that we got was at 10.20 am on the day that the statement was made. Willie Rennie, followed by Sandra White? Sometimes I think that this Government revels in being insulted by the UK Government. What I want to know from the justice secretary is that, as he knew this was coming, I think that a reaction was required to the ECJ judgment. What efforts did he and his officials make to communicate their views to the UK Government about the changes that were required? He does not actually have to wait to be asked. Surely, he is a bit more forthcoming than that. As I was saying to Marko Beagie, and I can reiterate to Willie Rennie, we did not receive any information or communication from the UK Government until 10.20 am on that morning. Officials had been advised that something was brewing, that they were not in the loop and had been kept out of it. I have to say, I think, with regard to Mr Rennie. I have condemned the processes here. I do accept that there is a principle and, in principle, we do have to update our retention. It is where you set the mark and how you ensure that we have appropriate safeguards. Let me quote, not from the SNP group, but from Shammi Chakrabarti, director of liberty. What she said is that the Government, the Liberal Conservative coalition, has shown contempt for the rule of law by ignoring the court of justice. It has shown contempt for parliamentary sovereignty. Our elected representatives will have just one day to consider a bill with huge implications for the nation's privacy, making proper scrutiny, amendment or even debate impossible. Ms Chakrabarti, who I have a higher respect for, clearly felt that it was disrespectful to the Westminster Parliament, she did not even consider how disrespectful it was to the Scottish Parliament. Sandra White, full by Graham Pearson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It seems that the issue here at stake is basically non-consultation. I will perhaps go back a wee bit and ask the cabinet secretary how often the Scottish Government was consulted about the issue of retention of communication data and investigative powers prior to the legislation being announced. No, we were not consulted. The only discussion that I had was with James Brokenshire. It was, as I say to his credit, he wished to make it just before the Home Secretary went into the chamber. As a result of commitments for both of us, it was not until this Home Secretary had, in fact, made our statements. I find that highly regrettable. It made that clear to him. I did also make it clear that I did accept the principle for there being data retention, but there are clear questions that have to be answered, raised by David Davis, raised by Tom Watson, raised by my own parliamentary colleagues, raised by organisations such as liberty. As I also said in the statement, we are all on the same side here in keeping our community safe, tackling trafficking, protecting communities here and elsewhere from terrorism. I think that it is disrespectful and I think that it is almost sometimes harmful that that failure to take people into the loop was shown, not simply here, but indeed to their colleagues south of the border. Graham Pearson fell by Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do identify with the comments of Tom Watson, and I can appreciate that the cabinet secretary feels bruised by the process and the way that it is being conducted. I am pleased that, nevertheless, we are in agreement about the interim solution that has been arrived at at UK level. I would hope that, in a moment of self-awareness, he will consider the circumstances in his approach to what we previously discussed in terms of the arming of police and the year that we lost in policy development terms there. That said, of the £2.5 billion that the Government has identified to spend in defence, has he worked out how much will be ring-fenced to deal with the challenges of cyber crime and digital communications in light of the current challenge? No, I think that cyber crime is obviously going to be a matter that is currently under review by Police Scotland, engagement both with Police Services south of the border and indeed both European-wide and internationally. Cyber crime is a matter that is, as I say, a growing concern that it is clearly raising. I think that, as with all aspects of crime, the people best placed to deal with that, to make an assessment of the risk, to make an assessment of what action requires to be taken are indeed, as I say, the police and the chief constable tied in with, obviously, information that would be put in because of the nature sometimes of those that would be involved in it that would come in from the security services. I do believe that that is an operational matter. I do believe, though, that we do have to have appropriate safeguards and checks and balances, and I do believe that we also have to ensure appropriate discussion and debate, and that did not take place here. Thank you. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In regard to the respect agenda as quoted in the cabinet secretary's statement, does the cabinet secretary recall that David Cameron also said that this agenda is about parliaments working together of governing with respect because I believe Scotland deserves that respect? Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that by proceeding with the drip legislation, without even the most rudimentary consultation with this Parliament, that the UK Government has shown its true colours in its disregard for this very institution, the Scottish Parliament? If that's not bad enough, does he also agree with people like the veteran Labour MP David Winick, who said, I consider it to be an outright abuse of parliamentary procedure, or even Labour MSP MP Tom Watson, who called it an insult and democratic banditry? Cabinet Secretary? I'm sure he's used about the respect agenda not being a tear too. I think that's a matter as a say of concern. I did intimate that to James Brokenshire that process had not been followed. I think it's for the reason that we have all been discussing on all sides of chamber. We are all on the same side in tackling terrorism, protecting our communities from those who would harm it. This impacts not just Mr Pearson suggests that I may be bruised. I don't take it personally, these things go in the rough and tumble of politics, but as a disrespect to the Government, it's a disrespect to the Parliament of Scotland, we have to remember that, in previous incidents, in particular, I highlighted in my opening statement the incident that we faced and the challenges that we faced at Glasgow airport, security services cooperated with the police in Scotland. The Lord Advocate took charge, but cooperated with law enforcement south of the border. We did so because we knew not only had an atrocity being perpetrated here, but atrocities had been and were being planned south of the border. We cooperated to make sure that we shared our resources, shared our skills, shared everything to make sure that we kept our communities safe, because a crime against one is a crime against all, irrespective of where it's perpetrated. As I said, it is disrespectful to the Government and Parliament. It is also disrespectful to those who serve to make our communities safe, who work with colleagues in other agencies and other jurisdictions. That, as I say, is where I think that the greatest disrespect has been shown. I have three members who wish to ask a question. We finish at 5 o'clock, so I can be slightly more generous than usual. As I understand the SNP's position from the white paper, it says that some of the work undertaken by security and intelligence services means, by necessity, interference with the privacy of specific individuals. The cabinet secretary in his statement refers to terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers and others. I do not think that anybody would reject the idea that those kind of specific individuals might be targeted in that way, but is that clearly a rejection by the Scottish Government of the approach from the UK, which represents the routine mass surveillance of the entire population of the country? Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, if he has the responsibility in future for updating legislation in this area as he suggests, that legislation will prohibit the routine mass surveillance of the entire population? I agree, and I think that Patrick Harvie shares the views that we all do. Those people who would perpetrate evil, whether for terrorist purposes or indeed whether simply for their own gratuitous financial gain, sometimes require to be dealt with in a covert and subversive way, but we have to ensure appropriate checks and balances. With regard to the situation in the white paper, we have specified that we will have a security service. It is important that we should separate the police service from the security services. They will be held accountable with parliamentary scrutiny here, as well as with commissioners to address it. I think that it is all about where we set the bar. I cannot say to Mr Harvie that I do not think that those are decisions for me. We have laid out what the basis will be. Ultimately, it will be for this Parliament that has the powers to decide at what level to what distance it wishes its members to go. I think that I find it incredible that the Scottish Parliament would wish to wholesale replicate what we see happening down south. We would wish to ensure that we had balanced proportionality to protect our people, to pursue those who would cause us harm and not to interfere with the rights of the ordinary citizen to go about their daily business. That is my own personal view, but it will be for this Parliament, with all the scrutiny and safeguards and checks and balances that we will be built in to decide. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Just following on the final comments from the cabinet secretary, I can ask him what priorities an independent Scotland will have for investigatory powers. I think that those priorities will be the information that is available to those in charge of the security services and, indeed, to the chief constable. They will require to consider the threat assessment, as they do. We will take that on board. What we are quite clear is a Government, I think, and quite clear is an administration. This is about protecting our people from harm, protecting others, because bombings, whether in Madrid or London, are as reprehensible as a bombing that would take place here. Protecting us from those who would harm us and are operating in cyberspaces, Mr Pearson has alluded to, whether they are operating in the Philippines, Nigeria or, indeed, in our own jurisdiction. It is about ensuring that, but taking on board the points relevantly and cogently made by Mr Harvey, that it is about a proportionality reasonableness and making sure that we have the appropriate scrutiny to protect the ordinary individual, meanwhile being able to pursue those who would harm us. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like my Labour colleagues, I say to the cabinet secretary that I share his disappointment at the lack of proper consultation and debate in advance of this legislation. Can I ask him, however, to clarify whether he is proposing any substantive change to the legislation before us, as he does not appear to be doing so? I also ask him, given that fact, in his statement, he said that, where the power of the state impinges on the liberty of its citizens, it is imperative that elected representatives must always have an opportunity to debate the issues. Can I ask him why he believes that principle should apply to data retention but should not apply to the carrying of firearms, where Scotland faces a radical change in policy direction? It is rather bizarre that, having given a statement, having had these questions, having a police committee, having a Scottish police authority, having HMICS a quarterly review and, indeed, the perk, Mr Mackintosh should still come in labour at the point when, in fact, the whole criticism by his own members south of the border and, indeed, Conservative members is of a lack of discussion and, indeed, scrutiny. What I can indicate is that we have no intention of seeking to replicate simply the position that exists south of the border. I cannot decide how I would vote because this is, at the moment, reserved and, therefore, I have no vote. It is also difficult for me to comment because I have not been privy to the debate or the information, and that is part of our complaint about the lack of a respect agenda. However, what I can say is that I believe that, after the yes vote on 18 September, we will ensure that our people are protected. We will ensure that we play our part in protecting the citizens and other jurisdictions, but we will do so by ensuring that there is proportionality and appropriate checks, balances and safeguards. That concludes the statement on the data retention investigatory powers act UK legislation. We now move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 10712.1, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, which seeks to amend motion number 10712, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on Scotland and Malawi, be a grade 2. Are we all a grade? The next question is amendment number 10712.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion number 10712, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on Scotland and Malawi, be a grade 2. Are we all a grade? The next question is amendment number 10712, in the name of Humza Yousaf, as amended twice. On Scotland and Malawi, be a grade 2. Are we all a grade? The motion as amended twice is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who will leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.