 I to have business is consideration of business motion 10172, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the gender representation on public board Scotland Bill at stage 3. I would ask anyone who wishes to speak against this motion to say so now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 10172. Moved. Thank you, and no one has asked to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 10172 is agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We turn now to topical questions, and we start with question number one from Daniel Johnson. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported allegations of Government interference in the independence of the police investigations and review commissioner. Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson. I fully support the independence of the police investigation and review commissioner. The PIRC has made clear that there has been no interference in the publication of the audit report. I am clear that decisions about the timing of the audit report remain with the commissioner at all stages, and it was for her to consider whether the points raised were relevant or not. She decided that it was appropriate to proceed as planned and the Scottish Government fully supports the principle that the PIRC is independent in making such decisions. There is regular dialogue between the Scottish Government's sponsor teams and non-departmental public bodies. It is part of this to encourage public bodies to consider their role in the wider context of public services. Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I note the minister's response, but last month Scottish Government officials were rebuked by the PIRC for interfering with its independence following a specific request from an official. When did the minister become aware of that request? What steps has the minister taken to ensure that that will not happen again? With stories of the Government meddling in the SPA and now the PIRC, can the minister guarantee that this is the last story about interference with the police that will emerge from his department? I became aware of the emails regarding the matter on 25 January last Thursday when we were advised of the planning to publish the FOI request. What I recognise is that the PIRC believes that the aspects of the email from my official on 30 November could be perceived as Government interference with her independence. I also recognise that it is important that there should be no room for ambiguity in communications. I fully support the independence of the police investigation and review commissioner. Officials were setting out the aim of the email to identify risk for the PIRC to consider. Officials were aware of a number of on-going investigations of complaints against senior officials and senior officers, but had no knowledge of the content of the audit report when the email was sent on 30 November. The PIRC has made clear that there was no interference in the publication of the report. I am clear that decisions about the timing of the report remain with the commissioner at all stages. It was for her to consider whether the points raised were relevant or not. She decided that it was appropriate to proceed as planned, and I fully support her independent decision making in those matters. Daniel Johnson I note that the minister has twice said that there was no interference, but that depends on the critical fact that the request was not successful. The crucial question is whether the Government attempted to interfere in independent bodies. That was the PIRC's view in December. My perception of your remarks is that governmental interference with my independence, the attempt to interfere and failing is morally no different from attempting to interfere and succeeding. Does the minister accept that attempts to interfere in the independence of key public bodies such as the PIRC is completely unacceptable? Michael Russell Let me quote the PIRC on this matter. I quote directly from it, that there has been no instance of government interference and the release of the document when I head within the planned timescale. I recognise, as I have already said, the perception that the PIRC had in relation to the official's email. The member will recognise that the Government, in terms of its engagement with public bodies, will have on-going engagement over a whole range of different issues. It is appropriate for officials in engagement with bodies that they sponsor to highlight issues of risk for them to consider. What I am very clear about is that, in officials highlighting that, it is entirely for the commissioner to determine whether they are relevant or not and to make their decisions on that basis. That is exactly what happened here. The commissioner proceeded with the timeframe that she set out. I fully support that and recognise that that is an important part in the independence of the PIRC. Number of members who want to ask questions here. Liam Kerr would be followed by George Adam. Michael Matheson can stand there and claim that the report was not delayed and that there was no interference. However, it is no defence to say that the Government tried to stop it and failed. An attempt at interference is still interference. We now know that there is a deeply embedded culture of secrecy and central interference, and that tone is set from the top. Michael Matheson should have the good grace to realise what that means. If he does not, we should spell it out. He has fallen short of the standard sect that is expected in high office. He does not have the moral credibility to do his job. When will he do the honourable thing and resign? I will continue to do the honourable thing, and that is to do my job properly. As I set out to Mr Johnston, officials were aware that the PIRC was undertaking an audit of the SPA's complaints process. The PIRC informed them in late November that the audit would be published in December. Officials were aware of a number of on-going investigations into complaints against senior officers, but they had no knowledge of the contents of the audit report when the email was sent on 30 November. They aimed to identify potential risks for the PIRC to consider. It was clear from the PIRC's response on 5 December that the report would be published at the end of December. It is legitimate for the Government to highlight potential risks that may be relevant to the work of a public body. That is not a new thing in Government, but that is a thing that has gone on in Government for many, many years and under different Administrations as well. However, the decision on what action was appropriate in light of those issues was clearly a matter for the PIRC to make. The PIRC, as an independent body, has made it clear that there has been no interference in the publication. As the PIRC has stated, it decided that it was appropriate to proceed as planned in the publication of the report, and I fully support the independent decision-making of the PIRC in this matter. George Adam is to be followed by John Finnie. In this point, it is important to get the actual facts across. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that at no point has the Scottish Government interfered in the report that was carried out by the PIRC or the date of its publication? At no point has the Scottish Government interfered in this or any report carried out by the police investigation and review commissioner. The PIRC is an independent body, and it has been made clear that there has been no interference by the Scottish Government in this particular publication. The release, as I have mentioned, has now several times went ahead as was planned in the timescale. The Scottish Government is clear that decisions about the timing of this audit report remain for the commissioner at all stages, and it was for her to consider whether the points raised by officials were relevant or not. She decided that it was appropriate to proceed as planned, and the Scottish Government fully supports the principle of the PIRC, making those independent decisions. John Finnie is to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, can you outline how you would characterise relationships between yourself and the PIRC? Since you have made very clear what you consider does not constitute political interference, could you outline some examples of what would constitute political interference, please? Cabinet Secretary. My view is that the role of the PIRC is entirely independent of Government in taking further investigations in those matters. Clearly, it is a sponsored division by the Scottish Government because we fund it in order to support it in its role, and we will provide it with supporting guidance as we do with any other public body in the public sector landscape. That is not peculiar to the PIRC or to justice that happens right across Government. I was a health minister in working with sponsored bodies in the health sector as well, and it will be the same in other parts of the public sector. Supporting guidance is a key part of Government and its relationships with public bodies. It is also equally important to recognise the independent nature of those bodies. In decisions relating to those types of matters, it is entirely a matter for the PIRC to make determinations on those matters and to consider whether any views that are expressed by the Government are relevant or not, and to then take a decision on what action they will take. Liam McArthur will be filled by Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A Government official suggesting that the PIRC holds back a report because the timing was not convenient is extremely serious. Even if the interference was unsuccessful, does the cabinet secretary accept that this shows the unhealthy consequences of concentrating power in the hands of so few, and that the temptation to intervene would be less, where power is shared more widely? The issue relating to the timing of the publication of the report was for the PIRC. What I can say is that, at the time when the email was sent to the PIRC by the official within the Scottish Government, it had no knowledge of the content of the report or the terms of reference of the report in terms of the timescale of the complaints that it was dealing with. The detail of that only became known to the Scottish Government when the embargoed copy of it was provided. It is wrong to try and suggest that this was about, because there were critical aspects within the report that the Government just did not think was convenient because it did not know what was in the report in the first place. It is important that the PIRC is able to take forward those matters in a timeframe that is appropriate to the PIRC. I know that members have raised concerns in the past about the time that it takes for the PIRC to investigate certain complaints and certain issues, but the reality is that that is entirely a matter for the PIRC. If it takes longer for the investigation to be thorough and detailed, it is entirely appropriate that it should be given the time and the space and we should recognise that in order to allow a very thorough and detailed investigation to be undertaken in any complaints that it is dealing with. I will continue to defend them in making sure that they are given the right to be independent in those matters and the appropriate time to investigate complaints as and when it is appropriate. Margaret Mitchell, to be followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. PIRC is the latest example of the Cabinet Secretary interfering in the decisions of the public body. On 24 January, I asked the minister very specifically whether he sought legal advice before interfering in the SPA decision. His response was that he took appropriate advice from members, so I asked him which members did he seek advice from. Specifically, was the First Minister one of those members? What advice was given? This is the fourth opportunity that the Cabinet Secretary has had to come to the chamber to tell us whether or not, categorically, he sought legal advice. In relation to the PIRC report, there was no legal advice for me to take, because it was an issue in terms of an email exchange between officials. In relation to the wider points that he has made, Government officials and I take advice from officials on an on-going basis on a whole range of matters, and part of that includes taking legal advice. I am sure that the member will recognise that Governments do not publish the details of the nature of the legal advice that they receive, which is not just the position of this Government, but has been a position of previous Governments and is the same position as the UK Government in these matters. I have taken advice from appropriate officials, including legal advice, as and when it is necessary on a whole range of matters relating to my portfolio. Rona Mackayde is followed by Mary Fee. For the avoidance of doubt, when he first became aware that the PIRC was undertaking an audit of SPA complaints and when he first saw the report? I became aware of the audit that was undertaken by the PIRC when they published the details of that at the end of June of this year and received an embargo copy of the PIRC report on 27 December. Mary Fee is followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Given that the independence of the PIRC is set out in law, has the cabinet secretary examined whether there have been any breaches of the civil service code in relation to the incident? If not, will he do so? In matters relating to breaches of the civil service code are a matter for the civil service. Gordon Lindhurst is followed by Fulton MacGregor. To follow up on that, however, surely by failing to take records of crucial meetings, Michael Massen and his officials may have breached the ministerial and civil service code. Surely the right thing to do is to take responsibility and resign. I did not have any meetings with regard to the particular report that the member referred to. To ask the cabinet secretary, are PIRC properly resourced to deal with the current on-going investigations? The PIRC is taking forward a significant level of work in demand that has been placed on it because of the range of complaints that it is now dealing with. Since the PIRC was created back in 2013, we have increased the budget of the PIRC by some 20 per cent. This year alone, I provided the PIRC with an additional £100 million to deal with the additional demands that it is facing. I have also received at the end of last year a business plan put together by the PIRC in regard to the increasing demand that it is facing and the resources that are necessary in order to meet that demand. I have given consideration to that. With the support of Parliament around the budget, if it is agreed, I intend to increase the PIRC's budget by more than £1 million in the forthcoming financial year, which will increase the budget by almost 30 per cent in order to allow it to increase the range of staff that it has in dealing with the investigations and the demands that it is experiencing at the present time. Maurice Corry will be followed by Neil Findlay. A meddling in the decision making of independent bodies cannot be tolerated. The public will be most appalled at sustained cover-up, which appears to have been sanctioned from the very top. How does Michael Matheson expect to continue day-to-day working with those who have accused him of governmental interference with the independence? I have absolutely no idea what cover-up the member is trying to make reference to, but what I will do is I will quote what the PIRC has got to say in this matter. That is that there has been no instance of government interference and the release of the document went ahead within the planned timescale. The emails that the member and others have made reference to were brought to my attention on 1-25 January for the first time. Did I have knowledge of the engagement between my official and the PIRC? No, I had no knowledge. Did I ask him to make such a representation? No, I did not. I hope that that clarifies things for the member in terms of my involvement in the matter. Neil Findlay will be followed by Mike Rumbles. I understand why the minister will be confused, because there are so many cover-ups that she does not know which one we are talking about. On a related issue, in November, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary delivered her report on the undercover policing in Scotland to the cabinet secretary. Why is that report still not being published? Is it another one where the minister is deciding when it will be released? As I said, the report will be published in due course. Finally, Mike Rumbles, is it the case that the cabinet secretary fails to recognise attempted interference in the independence of independent bodies? Is it because he is failing to recognise that he and his officials are interfering in that way? Is that because he himself or his officials routinely communicate like that to independent bodies? As I have made clear, there has always been a case that the Government engages with a range of non-departmental public bodies and a whole range of issues across Government. That is no different than this Government, as it was in previous Governments, when the Liberal Democrat Labour Party was in control within Scotland. I have no doubt that it remains the case with the UK Government as well, offering guidance, support and exchanging information with it. That is normal part of Government's work and normal part of that engagement process. I am sure that the member would recognise that that is not something that is peculiar to this Government, but that is something that has always occurred in relation to the relationship between Government and other public bodies. Thank you. That concludes our questions on Perk. The second question, the topical question, is from Christine Grahame. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on concern regarding the currents of stop-skipping by ScotRail. I completely understand the frustration that skip-stopping can have on the customer experience. I fully expect the performance issues to be addressed immediately. I speak with Alex Hynes, the MD of ScotRail Alliance, on a regular occasion to stress that very point and an answer to a question last week from Alex Rowley. I mentioned the fact that Alex Hynes has instigated an independent review of part of ScotRail's recovery measures, which I very much welcome. The review is very much under way and we will look at steps to recover performance and aim to reduce skip-stopping. Once the findings of the review are published, I will take the opportunity to look at the recommended steps for improvement and how that information is made publicly available. I am aware that the practice is undeniably and understandably unpopular, so my officials at Transport Scotland will continue to monitor and challenge ScotRail to ensure that that practice is minimised. To put some context on it, I would like to note that, over the last year, around 0.78 per cent of services ran skip-stopp against the circa 763,000 services that were booked. Just to put that in context, that means that 99.2 per cent of services did not skip the stops. Christine Grahame With reference to the view, can the minister advise now or after the view how many of those stop-skippings were due to breakdowns on the network or breakdowns of other rail providers? Given that it is not under all the control of ScotRail—I am not excusing it—is there not an argument for integrating the network and ScotRail? The member raises a good point. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I will look them out with my officials a bit from time and time again through independent reports such as Reform, Think Tank. They have shown that, 54 per cent, the majority of delays are down to network, rail and infrastructure. Network rail is, of course, a reclassified body under the UK Government's department for transport and not within the devolved control of this Parliament or, indeed, this Government, but she is right that that is not an acceptable excuse at all. Simply put, ScotRail and the ScotRail Alliance must work on minimising skip-stopping. I should say that, in the context of looking at the last railway year, there were significant improvements in skip-stopping. ScotRail managed to get it down to 0.4 per cent of services, and that has increased because of the poor performance in autumn and winter. As I say, when the independent review has conducted, I will share the recommendations in an appropriate way with members around the chamber. Christine Grahame I know what the minister says about network rail's part in this, but as a victim of unannwn, I stopped skipping myself on the border railway, as the train whist passed Newton Grange where my car was, I had to go on to Shelfair and take the next train south. Had I been picking up children in a different matter from me just being very, very cross, will the minister see to ending this practice because the impact on individuals on the train can be quite substantial if they get children to pick up elderly people, job interviews and so on? They can lose 45 minutes by having to go to another station and take a train back. John Swinney The member's example is one that is too often experienced by people on the railways, as I have said, and I simply am not dismissing that concern in the slightest. What I would say is that, in some instances, the ScotRail Alliance feel that skip-stopping has to take place because of the fact that, because the infrastructure might fail, there might be a points failure, a signal failure, there might be a rolling stock failure, therefore in order for the entire network not to be out of kilter, it might have to skip a stop. However, what is clearly unacceptable and what happens far too often is the communication around that. People are already on the train and their stop is missed out and skipped. If people knew in advance that the train was not going to stop at XYZ station, they could perhaps plan their journeys ahead. There is clearly a failure in communication as well as, as I say, not a good enough experience in terms of performance, but I can give the member the absolute assurance that, as part of the independent review that is being taken forward by Nick Donovan, they are considering how to minimise that practice, so we can get it down to the absolute minimum levels. There are up to another six members wanting in on this issue, clearly of some interest. If the minister can make his replies as brief as possible, we will see how many will get through everything, we will get through them all. 1. Jamie Greene Around 20 trains a day in Scotland have missed their stop, causing huge inconvenience to both those on the train who are unable to get off and those waiting at stations. What conversation he is having with ScotRail to ensure that this practice is minimised? Will he ensure that ScotRail will give passengers more advanced foresight, so that station will be skipped and better information on alternatives? How passengers who are affected by this practice are adequately compensated for any inconvenience or cost incurred a result of their stop being missed? I hope that I answered those questions to Christine Grahame, but to emphasise, yes, I will reiterate that point to Alex Hines. I encourage him to do so. It is absolutely part of the independent review. Once those recommendations come my way, I will certainly look at them and have a discussion with Jamie Greene on those recommendations. He is absolutely right to highlight the point around communication, which is such a frustration for passengers. In fact, passengers that I have talked to and spoken to completely understand that things can go wrong on any rail network, whether it is infrastructure or rolling stock. What they are not prepared to accept is the lack of communication. On 2018, in the 21st century, with the smartphone technology that we have, that message should be getting out to them. I would say that the member said that there are 20 services a day. Again, just to put that into context, that is about 0.8 per cent of services. The vast majority still do run to the stations that they are meant to, but notwithstanding that point, the member makes a well-made. Jackie Baillie The minister knows that passengers on ScotRail services to Dumbarton, Helenswyr and Baloch are frequently affected by station skipping, and scheduled services often whizz past Cardras and Dumbarton central stations without stopping leaving passengers stranded. Even the promise to abolish station skipping during rush hour has been broken. Can I point out as gently as I can to the minister that 0.08 per cent may sound small, but it is 64,000 journeys and it feels like most of them are happening in my patch? Will the minister ensure that statistics are published for each line and end the practice of station skipping at key stations like Dumbarton central and Cardras? Michael Russell I am not sure about the figures that the member quoted, but I certainly have not been dismissing them, I hope. In the tone of all my questions here, I have said that that practice is one that clearly I find unacceptable, but I did try to give you some context around why sometimes it might be necessary, so the rest of the network is not out of kilter for the rest of the day. I agree with that. It is too high, as it is when I spoke to Alex Hines, I should say that he personally mentioned that he would be in continual dialogue with Jackie Baillie. I think that he has another meeting arranged, if not I think that it should be coming her way. I personally mentioned the fact that he will be speaking to Jackie Baillie, and I know that that will be part of the agenda. What I would say is that the promise—she is wrong and I just want to correct the record—was never said that it would be abolished during peak time, it would be minimised during peak time. That is clearly, again, not happened, so we have to ensure that we get back to minimising it. We did manage to achieve that earlier in 2017, during the spring and summer 2017, but, clearly, autumn or winter performance is just simply not where we want it to be. I hope that the member will understand that I am simply not dismissing at all the very real frustrations by the passengers and, as soon as that independent review is conducted, we can get, hopefully, ScotRail back in the trajectory of improving performance. John Finnie. Does the minister accept that, given that stop-skipping is scored less harshly than a late alive, that the franchise agreement positively encourages that practice? Minister. No, I do not, because it is still counted towards a PPM failure. His colleague Mark Ruskell made this point to me, and I said that I would reflect on that when it comes to future franchises and looking to see how we can continue to disincentivise that practice, but it does count as a PPM failure. I think that that is very, very important. Of course, ScotRail are judged on their PPM statistics as well. Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can the minister look into the situation in my constituency of scheduled trains ending at Hamilton and not continue on to the halt at Larkhall via Shatlarow in Merityn? Not quite station skipping, but just missing out the final three stations. This is an all-too-regular occurrence in his life. Many of my constituents stranded out of pocket and incredibly upset, especially if they have annual season tickets. Yes, I will mention that point to Alex Hines, the MD of Scotland Alliance. When I speak to him, I will encourage him to meet the member directly, but he is absolutely right. It will be a source of frustration if he is expecting to stop at those last few stops. Of course, the train does not. I accept that and, as I say, I do not minimise that or dismiss that concern, but I will arrange for Alex Hines to speak to her personally about that issue. I know that the member has been very good engagement with him on other issues around Hamilton Central and the antisocial behaviour therein. Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the performance data on stop skipping, overcrowder and even what targets ScotRail will work towards are not routinely published, does the minister accept that it is time for both ScotRail and the Government to come clean with the travel in public and publish the statistics on stop skipping on a routine basis so that we can properly assess performance? I do not accept the characterisation from Colin Smyth at all. There is a plethora of statistics that are published routinely. Sometimes members need to be pointed in the right direction of where they may be, and I will reflect on that because there can be a lot of statistics there, but I will reflect on that. I am not dismissing his concern on that, but we are very upfront with our figures. That is why I have been able to quote him period by period figures. I can break that down by line and by service as well. I am more than happy to do that because we have got nothing to hide in the sense that we want ScotRail to improve working with them hand in hand to see that improvement. Hopefully, when the independent report is published, I am more than happy to speak to Colin Smyth in his new role. I know that overseeing transport issues for the Labour Party and what those recommendations are. I have some sympathy with the issue of Scotship, given that Sunnyside in Central Cotebridge has been subject to this in recent weeks to the annoyance of many commuters. Does the minister agree with me that the Treasury announcement last year that rail funding provided for Scotland would be £600 million less than is needed over the five years from 2019? Is a major factor in this and risk-serious damage to rail projects, performance and infrastructure? Yes, that is a good point to raise. Clearly, any shortfall on funding is going to impact the infrastructure and the maintenance of the railways. We will continue to have that dialogue with the UK Government. I am notwithstanding that, there is clearly an imperative here for ScotRail to improve the performance, which I know that Alex Hynes takes seriously and to reduce the practice of skipping stops. We will continue to focus on that at the same time as we continue to have conversations with the UK Government on what is a very damaging settlement for Scotland railways. That concludes Tupperware Questions. I thank both ministers and all the members for taking all the questions. There was clearly a high level of interest and we did have some time in hand this afternoon.