 The next item of business is topical questions. We start with question number one from Douglas Ross. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the consultation document, Policing 2026, our 10-year strategy for policing in Scotland. We welcome yesterday's publication of the draft Policing 2026 strategy, which sets out the steps that Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland propose to take in order to better meet the policing challenges of the future. The strategy's clear focus on improving the operational capacity of our police and enhancing the quality of the service that the public receives is something that we very much support. Once finalised, the document will play a key role in shaping the future direction of policing, and I would encourage all those who have an interest in participating in the consultation to do so now that it is under way. Douglas Ross. Yesterday, we learned not from the 2026 strategy but from the accompanying press conference that 400 officers will be cut from the single force by 2020 and that officers are currently backfilling administrative roles. That backfilling mission came just a week after I received a letter from David Page, the Deputy Chief Officer with Police Scotland, denying that the policy even existed. What confidence can the public have to respond to this strategy? I agree with the cabinet secretary that we must respond to it, but what confidence can the public have to respond to it if it does not even mention police officer numbers? Given that the word rural is not mentioned once in the strategy, despite a rural population growing at a faster rate in recent years than the rest of Scotland, does the cabinet secretary agree that this is a crucial consideration and what assurances can he give that rural communities will not be overlooked? Let me try to unpick a few of the points that Douglas Ross has made there. The issue around the police numbers is again a draft proposal that has been put forward by the chief constable and by the Scottish Police Authority on a change in the way in which they wish to have the mix of staff within Police Scotland. It is right to recognise that the nature of crime that the police service and the demands on the police service over the past 10 years has significantly changed. The way in which they now have demand in the form of demand from mental health issues, from missing persons, from vulnerable individuals and ageing population, the demand that they now have from crimes that are now taking place within a private place—we have saw big drops in crimes that take place within a public place, particularly crimes such as violence—has now moved into the private place, with an increase in domestic violence being reported and the way in which we have saw an increase in cyber-related crime. It is important that the police have the right mix of staff and the skills to be able to meet those types of crimes and new and emerging threats effectively. That is something that I have said on a number of occasions. That is something that we set out in our manifesto last year in the election campaign. Chief Constable set out his vision of how, over the next 10 years, he believes that can best be achieved. Part of that is to make sure that some of the transformation that has not taken place, as the chief constable also confirmed, in the corporate, in the support role within Police Scotland—much of which has remained the same as it was with the previous legacy forces—is part of that, as we are moving officers who have been in those roles out into front-line responsibilities and reforming the way in which they provide support to officers through corporate and wider support and organisation. I think that that is to be welcomed. I think that that is important, and I think that there are important lessons there for us to consider over the coming weeks. On the issue of rural matters, of course, that is a significant issue for Police Scotland. We would expect that to be set out in the final strategy, because, of course, no doubt the member will want to make his views known to Police Scotland and to make his own submission to this consultation exercise, and no doubt the issue of rural concerns is a matter that he will choose to focus on. I still have concerns that, if the chief constable was able to tell a press conference immediately after the release of that strategy, why is it not in there to get the public's feedback on that? However, I would like to concentrate on one other issue, which is technology. By its own admission, Police Scotland's technology is slow and outdated, and there is duplication of input. Those problems were supposed to have been overcome by the merger and the failed I6 project. Technology is a linchpin of that strategy, but the single-forces track record on the front has been poor to date. We now learn that Police Scotland will invest in technology, streamlining processes through greater self-service and automation. That could further distance officers from local communities who just want to speak to their local officer. What safeguards can we take from the strategy that those ties will not be further eroded? The member seems to fail to recognise the fact that this is a draft strategy, which Police Scotland has put out along with the Scottish Police Authority to allow people to comment on and to express their views on. Those are issues that can be considered over the period of the consultation exercise. I say in particular on the issue of IT infrastructure in Police Scotland. The reality is that the vast majority of the IT infrastructure that we have in Police Scotland has been inherited from the previous legacy forces. In addition, the I6 initiative was one that is genesis, because it is a way back to the legacy forces when it was looking for a single-place IT system in Scotland. The I6 programme has not been delivered on by the company that was appointed to deliver that particular initiative, but the need for IT improvement is exactly why we have provided additional reform money in the draft budget that we took through Parliament just last week in order to allow that type of IT investment to take place. That will support the police in being able to make sure that they are releasing the capacity that they have within the organisation at the present time that has been taken up by the slow and outdated IT systems that they have at the present time. That is the type of thing that, as the chair of the SPA set out and also the chief constable will set out, will be key priorities in moving forward with the strategy in the coming years. For context on those islands, can the cabinet secretary provide some detail on how the number of police officers in England and Wales compares to the number of police officers in Scotland? I am very clear about the purpose behind any strategy that is going to be approved by the Scottish Government as one, which is making sure that we have sufficient police officer numbers in order to deliver the safety and security to the people of Scotland. We have, over the last 10 years, been committed to 1,000 extra police officers. There are no plans to change police officer numbers in the forthcoming financial year. The present level of police numbers in Police Scotland is at 17256. What I am not going to accept is a strategy that follows the approach that has been taken by the Home Secretary in England and Wales, which has been to destroy some aspects of police operation provision in England and Wales, with 19,000 police officers being lost over the same period of time as we have been protecting police numbers. That has had a direct impact on the quality of policing that it has received in England and Wales. That strategy is not about delivering that, it is about making sure that we improve capacity and improve the service that the public receives from Police Scotland. I asked the First Minister about this last week, so I am intrigued with the question today and the statement yesterday from the chief constable. The First Minister denied that there was any change in policy. She committed to the 1,000 extra officers and said that it was not going to change this year. If the chief constable wants to reduce the officers by 400, as he stated yesterday, will he have the backing of the justice secretary? As I said yesterday, we will consider the details of the draft strategy, the feedback from the consultation and the final strategy before it is approved by Government. On that basis, it will be yes, because it will have to be approved by Government. John Finnie I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with me that the obligation that a chief constable has assessed the risks in putting place mechanisms to address the risks. That is not necessarily about numbers or buildings, it is about the quality of service. Will he undertake to move the whole conversation away from the obsession with 17234 and ensure that, if the chief constable comes with further requests based on an evidence need of developing threats and trains, he will support that? As I mentioned earlier, and I have stated in a number of occasions, it is important that the police are able to respond to the changing nature of our society and the changing nature of crime. That is about making sure that the police service is able to keep pace with those changes both at a societal level and at a crime level. The intention behind the strategy as a chief constable is to make sure that the police service in Scotland is able to meet those challenges effectively, delivering better capacity within Police Scotland and, at the same time, a better service to the public. I am very clear about the need to make sure that that is delivered. That is why I have said that there are a number of occasions about getting the right staff mix within our police service so that we can deliver a first-class service to the people of Scotland and to keep them safe. I will continue to have discussions with the chief constable over the coming weeks, as the consultation is taken forward and after the consultation is being completed, and we can make sure that Police Scotland is able to do that, not just in some parts of Scotland but right across the country. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that one in 10 training places is going unfilled, what action is it taking to encourage more people into teaching? The Government is determined to create an education system that is world-class, and teachers have a vital role to play in helping to achieve that ambition. Increasing the number of teacher training places available is crucial, which is why we are taking a number of actions to support universities to meet them. We are spending £88 million this year to make sure that every school has access to the right number of teachers. We are investing £1 million in the Scottish attainment fund to open up new and innovative routes into the profession. I recently launched our new teacher recruitment campaign, Teaching Makes People, building on the success of last year's campaign, which helped to drive a 19 per cent increase in PGDE applications to Scottish universities compared to the previous year. I want to see our universities build on that success and take further steps to attract high-quality students into their teacher education programmes. I thank the minister for that answer. As the Scottish funding council said about last year's cycle, one of the main problems with ensuring a good match between subject targets and intakes is that the timing of the announcement of intakes. An early announcement helps universities to plan and helps the Government's recruitment campaign. Last cycle, the Scottish Government sent guidance to the Scottish funding council in December. When did the Government send their guidance to the Scottish funding council for this cycle? The advice that was sent to the funding council in advance of the announcements that have been made and the decisions that have been set out to enable the universities to take forward the recruitment that is necessary. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer. Maybe I can help the cabinet secretary. The fact is that the Scottish funding council only received its annual guidance from the Scottish Government on 14 February. That is eight weeks later than last year. Last year, it got it before Christmas. This year, it had to wait until Valentine's Day. On the second problem that is identified by the Scottish funding council, the lack of student demand for some subjects, the Government launched a campaign this month, but this was also a month behind last year's efforts. The fact is that universities still do not know what their allocation and how many teaching students that the recruit will be. We also support efforts to boost the number of teachers and support this vital profession. This is rightly a top priority for the Government. Why are the eight weeks behind last year and does the minister commit to do better for next year's recruitment cycle? John Swinney As with most things about the education system, Mr Johnson's enthusiastic support for the Government's approach is very closely veiled by the way in which he articulates his arguments in Parliament. It takes a lot of digging to find out Mr Johnson's firm support for the Government's intention. I would have thought that Mr Johnson would have taken this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Government has significantly increased the number of places that are available for individuals to enter into teacher education and that Mr Johnson would have wanted to weigh in behind the Government's efforts to ensure that more and more young people decide to choose to enter into the teaching profession. That is what our approach is designed to do, to ensure that we can recruit the number of teachers to fill the teacher vacancies, which Mr Johnson is always moaning and whinging about. I was asked a question on Friday at an event in the Cared Holland Dundee in front of hundreds of teachers, and they asked me what would improve the perception of Scottish education. I said that if some members of Parliament improved the way in which they talked about Scottish education, the person that I had uppermost in my mind was Mr Daniel Johnson. I remind members that I am the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. Clearly, we need to ensure that there are enough places and sufficient take-up of those places at university for teachers, but an important part of that training is the opportunity for probationer teachers. Can the cabinet secretary advise what the Scottish Government does to support probationary teachers and what progress has been made on providing employment to teachers after they complete their probationary year? The Government has, as part of the last local government settlement in 1617, made available £37.6 million to local authorities to secure places for all probationers who require one. We work closely with local authorities to allocate places, and I can confirm that places have already been found for all eligible students since 2002. At the last available census, 87 per cent of probationer teachers were in permanent or temporary employment, which is a very encouraging figure, showing more probationer teachers are finding employment and stability. Has the Scottish Government had any discussions at all with the teacher training bodies to establish how many professionally qualified potential applicants from other jurisdictions would be able to fill some of those places if their qualifications were recognised in Scotland? Well, there are a number of issues that pertain there. One of them is about the free movement of individuals. I would have thought, Liz Smith might have thought more carefully, about asking me the question that she has just asked me, given the position that her United Kingdom Government takes on the approach that individuals have been able to apply to come in to teach in Scotland as a consequence of some of the issues with which we are resting and will be debating in the course of this afternoon. Obviously, in relation to some of the issues about accreditation and registration of teachers, I am in regular dialogue with the General Teaching Council for Scotland to ensure that the General Teaching Council is taking every step that it possibly can do to ensure that individuals who have the requisite qualifications in other jurisdictions, principally south of the border or perhaps in the north of Ireland as well, are able to have the most efficient and seamless transfer of their registration into the Scottish system, although, of course—and I am sure that Liz Smith would agree with me at this point—assuring the quality of any applications that are made by individuals. The GTCS is very firmly focused on that point. In relation to the colleges of education, I have had direct discussions myself with the colleges of education about the importance of those issues, and they have been fully involved in the discussions around the planning of the teacher intake numbers that we take forward. 3. Liam McArthur To ask the Scottish Government whether the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board will retain its current strategic, operational and budgetary decision-making powers in accordance with the recent vote in the Parliament. As I have mentioned many times before, I remain committed to keeping high firmly in place and at the heart of the Highlands and Islands economy, which is why I ask Professor Lawn Crierer, chair of high to lead discussions with the other agency chairs and some members of the ministerial review group, to provide me with his views on the principles and proposals for a strategic board. I am currently reflecting on the detail of the proposals outlined by Professor Crierer, the views of the ministerial review group and those expressed by wider interests in taking forward the development of the strategic board. I remain committed to the services and support that High provides, and I am happy to listen to members across the chamber in order to discuss the way forward ahead of a statement to Parliament in the coming weeks. 4. Liam McArthur Thank you, cabinet secretary. He might reflect on the views of Inverness-based economist Tony Mackay, who described the Crierer report as a whitewash. If the report's recommendations are implemented, the role of the High's board will be reduced to a mere delivery. It will be answerable to a new centralised superboard, chaired by an SNP minister. The loyalty of High's chair would be to Edinburgh to the minister, with the needs of the Highlands and Islands, our businesses and communities, a secondary consideration. How can the cabinet secretary square that with the expressed will of this Parliament to retain the full, current powers of the High's board? 1. A number of the points that Liam McArthur makes are speculative as to how the strategic board, for example, will be composed and some of the other outcomes that he mentioned. It's also true to say—and he's right to mention—the results or the comments that are made by an individual in the Highlands. There have been a number of different comments. For example, members of Cohe, the Convention of the Highlands and Islands, who, when I and the Deputy First Minister met them last week, expressed support for the continuation of the board. I acknowledge that point, but I also said that the nature of the board had to change to take account of developing circumstances. We've also seen comments from High themselves, which have been supportive. We've also seen comments from a number of other commentators, too. The important point, as I've said a number of times, is to listen to those points, including the points that Liam McArthur has made. I've also asked my office to arrange meetings with each of the other groups to see if they can come to some common ground in relation to this and to listen to the points that I've made. I've said that I've been willing to listen and I've talked to some members from the chamber, but it's much better if we can have direct conversations about that. That's the right spirit to take those things forward. Perhaps some of the fears that Liam McArthur has expressed might not come to fruition, but the best chance of achieving that kind of outcome would surely be to have a dialogue about what might happen in the final stages of phase 2 of the review. Liam McArthur Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, and let me make it clear that I don't believe that this is about the political affiliation of the minister. This is an arrangement that I would not support under any minister at all. Professor Jim Hunter is right when he says that this is centralism run riot. He remains unconvinced in the press and journal yesterday. He said that the changes would subject highs no longer autonomous board to constant outside oversight and direction, claiming that it will be, quote, no good for the Highlands and Islands or for Scotland. The cabinet secretary mentioned the discussions at the convention of the Highlands and Islands in Shetland last week. Can he tell the chamber whether the convention backed his latest proposals? The cabinet secretary said that the convention didn't have sites of long careers and proposals at that time that were not published. It did have a number of characteristics of what he had to say. There was strong support from what he had to say, but I want to acknowledge the fact that it did not have the full detail of that at that time. It was in advance of the ministerial review group. The two defining characteristics of the response was general support for the attention of a board for high. I have mentioned that already, but also an acknowledgement of the nature of that board had to change. In two other points, one that the board itself had to change because circumstances had changed. Most particularly, the point about the regional development assistance, which the Highlands and Islands have had through the European Union over many years, and the threat that Brexit presents to the continuation of that development. That was a matter of real concern, and for that reason, if for no other, the acknowledgement was that things had to change. In addition to that, the need for collaboration is a vital part of Lorne Crerar's report. If we take the example of the aluminium smelter at Fort William, that was a result of work done by Scottish Enterprise ministers and people from different agencies collaborating, that kind of thing should happen automatically. That is what Lorne Crerar was pointing towards, but, as I said, those are Lorne Crerar's proposals. Those are not the proposals of the Scottish Government. We are willing to listen and to discuss it with willing partners. The Crerar report recommends retention of the high board. However, it will be subject to the strategic board and therefore to the control of the Scottish Government. High was set up to benefit the Highlands and Islands. Can I ask the minister whether he listened to public opinion, and could he also explain to the Parliament why Government-backed benchers had access to the Crerar report and thereby so did the press before other members of the Parliament? I think that I have said on a number of occasions that, yes, of course, I am willing to listen to different shades of opinion. I have made that point repeatedly. What I have not had yet is the direct conversations that would support that listening exercise. As I said, I have contacted the other parties to say that if they want to have that discussion, then I am more than happy to do that. To do that in advance of the statement, when I will come back to Parliament in the next few weeks to say what the outcome or view is on the Government's review held by Lorne Crerar. I think that Lorne Crerar has undertaken a tremendous piece of work. He has not undertaken it under the direction of ministers. He has been asked to do this. He has discussed it with other agency chairs. It is a broad-pace piece of work. He tries to take forward the number of things that different members and parties in the chamber all say that they are committed to raising Scotland's economic performance, to ensure that we do it in a much more collaborative way among the agencies. I would have thought that, if we had that as a starting point, we could certainly agree on some of the other issues around the nature of the strategic board and how collaboration should best work. I am more than happy to have that discussion with Rora Grant and other members across the chamber. I have made the offer before. It is a sincere offer and I hope that members will take it up.