 Cymru'r cwestiynau cwestiynau. Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business, which is a statement by Michael Matheson on a strategic review of undercover policing by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Michael Matheson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I turn to undercover policing, I would like to update members on recent policing developments. As members will be aware, Phil Gomley has today tendered his resignation from the post of chief constable and will leave Police Scotland with immediate effect. I respect the decision of the chief constable and hope that this enables policing in Scotland to move forward with a clear focus on delivering the long-term strategy, policing 2026, that Phil Gomley helped to develop. While the management of the police service has been the subject of close scrutiny in recent months, I would like to pay tribute to all those officers who have continued to serve the people of Scotland every day, helping to keep crime at historically low levels and making our communities safer. I have spoken with Susan Deacon, chair of the Scottish Police Authority, who will undertake the process of appointing a new chief constable. Professor Deacon informed me yesterday that the Scottish Police Authority was in discussions with the chief constable's representatives regarding his future and provided assurance that the appropriate processes were being followed. I am encouraged by the commitment that she has made to improving the robustness of decision making in the Scottish Police Authority. I laid before Parliament the HMICS report on undercover policing. I would like to thank HMICS for the strategic review that I directed to be undertaken in September 2016. The report makes 19 recommendations and Police Scotland has undertaken all of those recommendations. I received HMICS's report on 2 November and I have taken my time to consider carefully all of the report and what it has to say. Members may be aware of the on-going judicial review into those matters. That has also had a bearing on the time taken to consider the report. The report says, and I quote, The use of undercover officers is a legitimate policing tactic and has been used effectively in Scotland. Operational activity has primarily focused on drug-related offences, child sexual abuse and exploitation, human trafficking and exploitation and serious organised crime. The report makes clear that since 2000 the use of the undercover policing tactic has not been widespread in Scotland. It states, and I quote, The number of undercover deployments by Scottish policing leads us to the conclusion that the use of undercover policing in Scotland cannot be considered to be widespread. Indeed, we believe that undercover advanced officers and undercover online officers have been underutilised. The report also goes on to note that, and I quote, There was no evidence that undercover advanced officers from Police Scotland had infiltrated social justice campaigns or that officers had operated outwith the perimeters of the authorisation. Members will be aware of the undercover policing inquiry. The UCPI, which is taking place in England and Wales. Its stated purpose is to investigate and report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces in England and Wales since 1968, including the full scope of undercover policing. The work of the Special Demonstration Squad, the SDS, and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, the NPOIU. A number of issues led to the instigation of the 2014 inquiry by the then Home Secretary. He's included Mark Kennedy, a former metropolitan police officer attached to the NPOIU, had infiltrated protest groups between 2003 and 2010. In 2011, a Guardian article claimed that undercover officers routinely adopted a tactic of promiscuity. We have heard in previous debates in this chamber about undercover officers having long-term relationships with members of the groups they had infiltrated. In 2012, Theresa May appointed Mark Ellison QC to carry out a review of the police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence for the purpose of examining allegations reported in the media that the investigation had been tainted by corruption. In 2014, Theresa May told House of Commons that the findings of Mark Ellison and of Operation Herm, a review of the Special Demonstration Squad, had persuaded her of the need for a judge-led public inquiry into undercover policing. The accumulation of revelations of highly questionable and unethical behaviours eventually led to the establishment of the undercover policing inquiry. They all relate to English police forces, which fall within the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary. Despite the evidence that the SDS and the NPOIU had been active in Scotland, the reference for the undercover policing inquiry did not and do not extend to Scotland. I wrote on a number of occasions to Theresa May stating that I was disappointed that the reference for the undercover policing inquiry would not be extended to allow it to consider the evidence of the English and Welsh units activity in Scotland. In her letter of January 2016, Theresa May wrote that the inquiry is, and I quote, "...interested in the whole story and are bound to encourage those coming forward to provide a complete picture when submitting their evidence." Despite that response, neither Mrs May nor her successor saw fit to amend the terms of reference in order to allow that whole story to be considered. The HMICS report confirms that undercover officers from the SDS and the NPOIU were active in Scotland. The activity, however, was not, as we understand it standalone and not self-contained within Scotland. Nor did it have any particular Scottish focus. There was nothing that set it aside as something distinctive from the unit's activities that were being considered by the undercover policing inquiry. Those undercover units' officers required to be authorised. The HMICS review confirmed that, with the exception of a number of authorisations made around G8, it was authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Pillars Act 2000, RIPA. That is the appropriate statute for the authorisation of activity by law enforcement bodies in England and Wales. The review comments that a number of G8 authorisations were dual-authorised under RIPA and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Scotland Act 2000, RIPSA. My understanding is that this was done as a built-in braces approach and that the RIPSA authorisation, which was made by Tayside Police, were effectively a subset of the wider RIPA authorisations. Those authorisations would have been subject to oversight at the time by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. RIPA allows for the authorised activity to cross the border north into Scotland. However, it does so with one important caveat. It can only do so so long as not all the activity authorised takes place in Scotland. In simple terms, the activity of these English and Welsh undercover officers in Scotland was authorised as part of an operation that began or mainly took place south of the border. In 2005, the SDS and NP-OIU officers were deployed to, in support of the Scottish Police operation for the G8 summit at Glen Eagles. The HMICS review states, and I quote, "...the SDS, the NP-OIU and other deployments of undercover officers at the G8 summit were undertaken with the full knowledge, permission and authorisation of Tayside Police." Outwith the policing of the G8 summit, the undercover deployments by the SDS and the NP-OIU to Scotland were the responsibility of the SDS and NP-OIU. The report makes clear that, outwith G8, Scottish police forces were unsighted on SDS and NP-OIU operations in Scotland. I welcome the HMICS recommendation that Police Scotland should, in partnership with the relevant UK bodies, establish a formal process for the reciprocal notification of cross-border undercover operations. Members in this chamber and others have called on the Scottish Government to establish inquiry. Both the Scottish and UK Governments are currently subject to a judicial review relating to the undercover policing inquiry. This case is currently in court, so I cannot go into detail about that, but the basis of the case is a matter of public record. It challenges the UK Government on its decision not to extend the undercover policing inquiry to cover Scotland. It challenges the Scottish Government because we have not held a 2005 act inquiry with similar terms of reference in Scotland. The HMICS strategic review was always going to be instrumental in forming my decision on how to respond to calls for a separate Scottish inquiry. We have seen no evidence of the sort of behaviour of Scottish police forces that led to the establishment of the undercover policing inquiry. The HMICS review provides reassurance to the public and to this Parliament around the extent and scale of the use of undercover police officers since 2000. It identifies room for improvement and makes a number of recommendations that Police Scotland has committed to implementing in full. I have considered carefully whether I should establish a separate Scottish inquiry under the inquiries act. In all the circumstances I am not satisfied that establishing a separate inquiry is necessary or in the public interest. There is some legitimate public concern around undercover policing activity in Scotland and I have had regard to those concerns in reaching a decision on this matter. However, on balance I consider that establishing a Scottish inquiry under the 2005 act into undercover policing is not necessary or justified. The factors that have led me to that view include the lack of evidence of any systemic failings within undercover policing in Scotland and in light of the limited scale of the activities of SDS and NPOIU Police officers in Scotland I believe that setting up a further inquiry would not be a proportionate response. I believe that such an inquiry would inevitably create a measure of duplication with the undercover policing inquiry by involving many of the same core participants, law enforcement officers and has the potential to overlap conclusions and remedies. It could, because of the scale and duration of the undercover policing inquiry, be subject to potential delay in obtaining metropolitan police service participation and documentation and would be disproportionate in terms of costs. The responsibility for the actions of English and Welsh police units sits with the UK Government. London's Deputy Mayor of Police and Crime and the relevant Chief Officers. The Scottish Government's position remains that the clearest and most effective way of addressing concerns about what may have happened in Scotland as a result of actions of English and Welsh police officers is to the terms of reference for the undercover policing inquiry to be amended to allow it to look at the activity of English and Welsh police operations that took place across Great Britain. Accordingly, I have written again to the Home Secretary to ask her to reconsider those terms of reference and have provided her with a copy of HMICS's strategic review. I can provide Parliament with the assurance that any recommendations that arise from the undercover policing inquiry will be considered and where appropriate and necessary will be implemented in Scotland. I have every sympathy for individuals if they have suffered due to the actions of undercover police officers who have behaved in ways that are entirely unethical and unacceptable. However, I am clear on the basis of the evidence that we have that such behaviour by police officers in English and Welsh units is a matter for the Home Secretary and the most effective way for the undercover policing inquiry to see the whole story and complete picture that the current Prime Minister referred to previously is for the inquiry to be allowed to consider all of the relevant evidence. Before calling members, I will draw members' attention to a couple of points. The cabinet secretary referred to the on-going judicial review in relation to the independent inquiry on undercover policing. I have received advice on that and I have reached the view that the sub-judice rule does not apply and I will therefore allow questions on the issues that the cabinet secretary has raised in his statement. I am also conscious of the greater level of interest in the statement from members following the cabinet secretary's points following the points that the cabinet secretary has raised about the resolution of the chief constable and it will allow some additional time to meet members. A point of order from Neil Findlay. I wonder if, in deliberations that the cabinet secretary who said that he would not comment on the case that was in court, whether time would be allowed for him now to comment about that case. Members are at liberty to ask questions and the cabinet secretary himself will decide how to respond appropriately to those questions. We will begin with question number 1 from Liam Kerr. I also thank HMICS for carrying out this important review that this party supported. It is absolutely vital that undercover policing is carried out in a proportionate, authorised and lawful manner and it is important that we recognise this report's findings that undercover policing is not widespread and has been carried out within the law. It is a legitimate tactic which has led to the arrest of many serious criminals. With that in mind, given the report's comment on Police Scotland's lack of capacity in relation to serious organised crime and online safety, what work is being done to address that? In relation to recommendation 19, when does the minister expect a formal process of notification for cross-border operations to be put in place? Can he explain why such a process was not already in place and what discussions is he having with the UK Government policing minister on that matter? Finally, turning to the chief constable's resignation, Mr Gormley has said that it was the events of and since November last year when the cabinet secretary interfered in the SPA's operational decision that has made it impossible for him to continue. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge his part in this decision and will the justice secretary now finally do the decent thing and follow the former chief constable out of the door? I'll do with his last part and leave Liam Kerr to the amateur politics around this issue and I'll do with the serious politics of this issue. To misinterpret someone's statement as well is very seriously misleading as well. Let me deal with his more substantive points and his more reasonable points. That is the lack of capacity around advanced undercover policing in particular areas such as serious and organised crime and online issues. The member will appreciate that these are entirely operational matters and that it is entirely a matter for the chief constable to determine how those issues are taken forward rather than being directed by ministers. What the report demonstrates is that there is a need for Police Scotland to look at those issues and Police Scotland has already accepted the 19 recommendations and has a steering group in place who are considering all of those issues. In relation to cross-border matters it would be preferential to have had a cross-border arrangement in previous years. However, we have two distinctive elements of legislation dealing with this matter and Police Scotland is now pursuing that matter with the relevant law enforcement bodies in the rest of the UK to seek to put in place an appropriate mechanism. I will also consider whether any representation needs to be made to UK ministers on ensuring that that recommendation is taken forward. I am confident in the commitment that Police Scotland has given to work with other law enforcement bodies in other parts of the UK to get a mechanism in place. It will require changes in Scottish legislation and in orc codes of practice and codes of practice for other parts of the UK. It is not something that we can put in place unilaterally here in Scotland alone but it is one that will have to be agreed across the whole of the UK. It is a very practical, sensible recommendation and Police Scotland has given a commitment Daniel Johnson I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement but I think that it is disappointing that the minister has chosen to conflate two important issues into a single statement this afternoon and I would ask him to come back to this place so that we have further time to discuss the leadership and governance of Police Scotland. On undercover policing the officers involved deserve our thanks for voluntarily putting themselves in challenging and sometimes dangerous and we welcome the review in so far as it provides a series of useful strategic recommendations to improve capacity and oversight of undercover policing but there remain unanswered questions was there infiltration in social justice campaigns before the formation of Police Scotland what about undercover activity before the year 2000 and what has been the impact on those targeted by undercover policing their friends and their family which is such a large part of the controversy and there remain unanswered questions so can the cabinet secretary please answer why in light of this he won't commit to an independent inquiry but turning to the chief constable's resignation it is a sign of strength that our police officers continue to do a diligent job despite the shambles regarding the governance of Police Scotland but the cabinet secretary may want to draw a line after today's resignation refers directly to the events of November 2017 and so does the cabinet secretary concede that those events that Mr Gormley refers to are his interventions and is he concerned that his actions may have prejudiced the chief constable's return cabinet secretary let me first of all correct the point that was made by Daniel Johnson about trying to conflate two different issues I suspect that had I come in here with the resignation of the chief constable people would think that is completely bizarre that you should have ignored such an issue I'm not trying to conflate two issues I'm merely just making reference to the fact that such a significant policing issue arose today and to suggest otherwise I must confess that it's rather bizarre on the part of Daniel Johnson let me now deal with the issues that Daniel Johnson attempted to raise I acknowledge that there is some legitimate public concern around undercover policing activities in Scotland as I said in my statement giving regard to those in the reaching the decision I have made on it I've given very clear indication as to what factors I took into account in arriving at a decision on whether an inquiry should take place here in Scotland a lack of evidence of any systemic failings within undercover policing in Scotland of the activity of the SDS and MPOIU police officers in Scotland I believe that an inquiry would inevitably create measures of duplication with undercover policing inquiry in England and Wales and would involve many of the same core participants law enforcement officers and has the potential to overlap in its conclusions and its remedies and it could be because of the scale and the duration of the UCP that it could be subject in to significant delay here in Scotland because of obtaining information from Metropolitan Police Service and those participating in that particular process and I'm also very clear that the activities of police officers from England and Wales rest with the Home Secretary on these matters and it's clear from what I can see in the HMICS report that the activities relating to the SDS and also the MPOIU rest with largely UK-based operations that were authorised under their processes and should be considered as part of the undercover policing investigation but what I can also say to the member that if information does become available particularly during the course of the undercover policing inquiry that does relate to Scotland then I would of course give that full consideration and consider whether any further measures are necessary here in Scotland Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell Thank you, Presiding Officer What impact does the Cabinet Secretary envisage that report will have in the future of undercover policing activities in Scotland? Cabinet Secretary The range of recommendations that have been set out in the HMICS strategic review I believe will help to strengthen the way in which Police Scotland take forward any undercover policing operations because it is a legitimate tactic that can be used in order to deal with issues of public order, organised crime, sexual exploitation, child abuse matters and it has a legitimate role in helping to tackle some of these very serious forms of criminal activity but equally it's also important that we have robust legislative processes around how it operates and that's exactly what the Regulation for Investigative Pills provisions are for and the new codes of practice which I just took through Parliament last week to the Justice Committee to make sure that we have robust measures in place in order to deal with these issues and for operational responsibility around Police Scotland in utilising these tactics but I believe that the additional recommendations from HMICS will allow us to strengthen that process even further and to give even further assurance about the way in which the Police Service in Scotland utilises this tactic Margaret Mitchell, followed by Rona Mackay Thank you Presiding Officer Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the complaints against Phil Gormley the issue and the cabinet secretary intervention into the SPA decision about the CC's special leave have at best been handled appallingly Will the cabinet secretary confirm if he has replied to the letter of 28 November to him from Mr Gormley's solicitors and if not why not, if so and when does he intend to do so and if so what did the response say in terms of the report today of undercover policing can the cabinet secretary confirm given he's been in receipt of this since 2 November some 14 weeks ago if he made any changes to the report's content and if so what changes were made and of the 50 undercover operations since the formation in 2013 the report states operational activity has primarily That's too many questions If the cabinet secretary answered the first two questions In relation to changes in regard to the report there have been no changes made to the report My understanding is as would normally be the process for dealing with reports of this nature it would be shared with Police Scotland for factual accuracy checking protocol for dealing with reports of this nature but there were no changes in it requested on my part I deal with the other issue that the member raised regarding the matter in relation to the former chief constable the letter which he has lost my accountability to this Parliament in his matters and I've answered questions in this Parliament on a number of occasions on this issue but what I can also say is that there have been significant things have happened since 2 November I was very clear about what the committee had in place there had serious deficiencies within it that's not just my view it's the view of the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority who have reviewed it has stated that she has found it wanting in many many ways the fact that the perk had not been consulted during the course of a live investigation that no welfare arrangements have been put in place for complainants within the organisation which we now know was the case and at the same time that the existing deputy chief constable Livingston had not been consulted or engaged in the planning around this process at all so I've been very clear that there have been serious deficiencies and it was unacceptable those deficiencies in that particular process I'm also conscious as I said that there have been two further complaints since 2 November as well there's been significant media and public commentary around all of these issues and an intensity around the complaints and the process in itself but I'm very clear that my actions in questioning the SPA on 9 November were entirely appropriate and indeed were expected of me and I have got absolutely no doubt had I asked no questions of that process the member would have been in here haranguing me time and time again for not having asked some basic questions and that demonstrated the deficiency in the process of identifying the new chair of the SPA has also identified Thank you, Presiding Officer Given that you said at the beginning of the statement that extra time had been allocated to allow the two issues to be dealt with in the cabinet secretary's statement could I question why the response to Daniel Johnson did not in any way shape or form address his question about the chief constable and given that we now do seem to have time constraints on questions which is highly surprising when two issues are trying to be dealt with in the wind statement could I ask if, Presiding Officer you would now be amenable to the cabinet secretary returning to the chamber to address the issues around the chief constable, Shazug Nish? First of all I thank the member for the point of order that there's not a point of order for the chair to ask there are many parliamentary opportunities that all members can take advantage of they can put down written questions they can write to the Government if they wish to have further parliamentary time that's a matter for your business manager through the parliamentary bureau to discuss I have allowed additional time but may I point out that the questions are slightly too long and the answers are slightly too long so when they get through some of the questions asked I'd ask all members and the cabinet secretary to answer them Rona Mackay, to be followed by Neil Findlay Thank you, Presiding Officer What impact has the creation of Police Scotland had on undercover policing in Scotland? Cabinet secretary As the HMICS report demonstrates is that Police Scotland has sought to take a much more strategic centralised approach to how they manage undercover policing in Scotland so there's a much more consistent approach to how undercover policing is utilised within the force to what we had previously with eight legacy forces on that matter so there has been a much more strategic approach taken forward in making sure that there's consistency in how undercover policing is addressed I turn to Daniel Johnson's question about chief constable it's an oversight in my part in responding to the issues but I'm conscious that he's raised with me now on several occasions and the answer remains the same is that the challenges and the issues the deficiencies in their process and anyone looking at the evidence that we've now heard in this Parliament around the deficiencies that were in that process are very, very clear and were unacceptable, as I have said time and time again and I consistently believe that that was the right action in asking them to consider these matters and that's why the former chair made it clear that they would go and they would consider these issues in making a decision that since that time in November the SPA have now considered this issue on four separate occasions and decided to continue with the chief constables leave during each of those considerations so they have revisited these matters and came to a judgment on these issues but the questions that the member has asked me has asked them on several occasions and the answers remain the same Neil Findlay to be followed by Ben Macpherson By refusing a public inquiry or to look beyond the year 2000 the cabinet secretary fails victims many of them women and fails our democracy now the only people on the mainland UK who will not have access to justice are Scottish victims how is this standing up for Scotland because it seems that the rights of the general public in Scotland to get to the truth and justice about these issues rest in the hands of one activist Tilly Gifford who as you know is bringing a judicial review against the Scottish and UK Governments for the failure to hold a public inquiry to access to that inquiry so will you do the right thing by the people of Scotland and establish a public inquiry now because the police inspecting the police in this whitewash simply will not do cabinet secretary I've already set out the reasons why I don't believe it's necessary or proportionate to have a public inquiry into this matter here in Scotland I am aware of many of those who have got concerns about what happened here in Scotland including participants in the undercover policing inquiry which is taking place in England and Wales it's also very clear as I said, they are core participants most of them in the undercover inquiry it's taking place in England and that will allow them to be able to make their case but even with that it's very clear from this review that has been conducted by HMICS that these were matters that relate to units within English and Welsh police forces and jurisdiction rests with the Home Secretary and that's why the undercover policing inquiry should take that into account in its remit Ben Macpherson, to be followed by John Finnie Does the cabinet secretary agree that because the report found and I quote, no evidence that undercover advanced officers from Police Scotland had operated out with the parameters of the authorization in undercover operations that this key finding demonstrates that this element of policing in Scotland is functioning proficiently with officers behaving in the way their superiors and, importantly, the public would expect Cabinet secretary The report highlights I believe what they found to be undercover officers who had a strong view that there were a number of clear safeguards in place for ensuring that ethical standards were maintained when they were being deployed in undercover operations. One of the key findings records undercover officers within Police Scotland understood the requirements, the legal requirements set out within the Regulation for Investigatory Powers Scotland Act and also the codes of practice which go alongside that. Members will also aware that the codes of practice were changed back in 2014 in order to increase the threshold for authorisations for some of those matters moving to an assistant chief constable and if the surveillance operation goes on for an extended period of time, authorisation requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and a deputy chief constable to give authorisation to those matters. I believe that the report demonstrates the significant safeguards that we have in place here in Scotland and also the ethical standards that are expected of undercover officers within Police Scotland. John Finnie to be followed by Liam McArthur. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. The cabinet secretary would ordinarily have an evidence base for his decision making. I have to say, I don't believe he's delivered that in this instance and I'll give two examples why. In the statement, you talk about the limited scale of activities of the SDS and NPOI. You talk about outwith GA Scottish Forces being unsighted on those activities but the most damning feature I thought you would have picked up on and used as evidence to support having an inquiry, cabinet secretary, is if I may, is a very short quote from paragraph 166. It says, our conclusions in relation to SDS deployments were based on the examination of SDS records held by Operation Herne, which is a metropolitan policeman, which stretched back over 40 years. Unfortunately, it is not possible to establish if the material obtained by Operation Herne is entirely accurate or comprehensive and if it is probable that given the passage of time and the likelihood of human error that some records are missing or inaccurate, I guarantee they'll be missing and inaccurate. Cabinet secretary, you need to take charge of this situation. You need to call an inquiry. You need to assert your independence in relation to this. This is a Scottish matter. Please deal with it. Cabinet secretary. The report states that they did examine the scale and extent of the NPOI operations in Scotland and they also had the recuperation of the Scottish Chief Council's national co-ordination team, which is part of Operation Herne, looking at the documentation relating to a number of those issues. The member will be aware that the report also recognises that some of that information is provisional as it stands at the present moment based on what are quite literally millions of documents that are presently being indexed and analysed as part of the preparations for the undercover policing operation. I mean that if there is new evidence or information that comes to light in due course regarding undercover policing operations with police officers here in Scotland, then I will give due regard to that. But as it stands at the present moment, based on the information that HMICS have been able to get access to, that is available to them as part of that documentation process, I don't believe that that's sufficient evidence that justifies the provision of a public inquiry at this stage. Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, but I echo the comments of John Finnie who expressed my disappointment that he's decided not to instigate a public inquiry here in Scotland and urge him to reconsider that. In the meantime, the confirmation of the chief constable's resignation does he not accept that no matter what the Government and the SPA have done, the problems are hardwired into the structures of policing thanks to a botched centralisation? Will he now agree to establish an independent expert group to come forward with proposals that inject accountability, transparency and localism back into the system? I'm relation to his first point regarding the undercover policing inquiry. Again, I've made it very clear as to the rationale that I recognise that there are members in the chamber who don't agree with that, but I've reached it on the basis of the evidence that is contained within the HMICS report. I've said as well that, should new information become available, particularly during the course of the undercover policing inquiry, if it's not extended to include issues relating to English and Welsh police units operating in Scotland, then I will give full consideration to that in due course. In relation to the matters relating to the SPA in Police Scotland, I don't believe that they are necessarily hardwired, and it's also been very clear that the new chair is keen not to get into a situation where she feels things that have been reviewed to death that she is given the space and the scope to be able to move the organisation forward in a way that is much more engaging both with Parliament and also with local elected members and with the other interested parties and stakeholders in Scotland. I would like to give Susan Deacon an opportunity to take that forward and to give them the space in order to make progress in some of those matters, which she said very clearly. She wishes to do so in a very as quick a manner as possible. No doubt, as a member of the Police and Sub-Committee, he will be keen to scrutinise the new chair on how they are moving forward and the spirit at which they are moving that forward. I can also say in relation to Police Scotland, that I recognise that there has been a significant focus on the chief constable and the senior management team within Police Scotland, but it is also worth reflecting on the comments that were recently made by Deputy Chief Constable Designate Ian Livingston about the performance of Police Scotland over recent months, where it continues to perform exceptionally well and how it handled a whole range of events over the festive period as well with all homicides all being solved and remaining which we have dealt with the way in which to respond to other major challenges as well and how officers have continued to perform their duties to an excellent standard. I hope as of today that we will be able to get more of a focus on the organisation moving forward with its 2026 strategy and the improvements and changes that the new chair of the SPA is keen to take forward at a pace. Mairi Gougeon, to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the advice and guidance for police officers who are engaging in undercover work is sufficient? I have already set out that some new guidance has just been issued around the regulation of investigative powers codes of practice which were approved by Parliament just last week in this matter. I believe that the existing legislative framework is robust and fit for purpose and provides necessary safeguards on authorisation. That has changed since 2014 and has increased the checks that have to be made against what was the office of the Savings Commissioner to the Investigative Powers Commissioner for any longer-term investigations and clearly where people have a concern about surveillance matters that they believe that under surveillance they have questions or concerns about that there is a process for escalating those concerns and that process is the Investigative Powers Commissioner's office and with the scope to go into an Investigative Powers Tribunal that can consider those issues in details and if necessary can issue findings against the relevant authorities for actions to be taken if they have acted in a way which is unethical and inappropriate. There are additional safeguards there for individuals where they have concerns about how some of those matters may be taken forward not just by Police Scotland but by any public authority to have the provisions to be able to undertake some form of surveillance. Gordon Lindhurst, to full by Stuart Stevenson. As the cabinet secretary has confirmed that all 19 of those not insubstantial recommendations will be implemented by Police Scotland can he also give the chamber an indication of what this will cost and where the moneys to do so will come from? Cabinet secretary. Will any cost associated with it will come from within existing budgets and the timeframe for taking them forward in relation to Scotland? I can say to remember that the steering group that has been established by Police Scotland has representatives from HMICS on it in order to consider the progress and the work that they are taking forward and I would expect as very often HMICS do in these cases to provide an update on the progress that has been made against recommendations that they have made in individual reports. Stuart Stevenson, to be full by Monica Lennon. Interallia recommendations 8 and 14 relate to the security of record keeping. Will the cabinet secretary work with the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that a dual key approach is implemented to ensure that no single individual can gain access to the most sensitive records whether in a secure computer system or otherwise? Cabinet secretary. The keeping of records in relation to surveillance matters is governed by the Regulation of Investigative Pills Act and the Investigative Pills Act here in Scotland. There are also the codes of practice that are associated with that piece of legislation. Those responsibilities are also subject to annual inspection which was carried out by what was previously the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner but which is now carried out by the independent, judicially led Investigative Pills Commissioner's office and any findings that they have in relation to the operation of data relating to those types of operations is something that they report directly to Police Scotland on and also can feature in their annual reports. That has been the case in the past where they have identified deficiencies relating to forces in the UK. Provisions in relation to the matters that the member has raised are governed by the existing Regulation of Investigative Pills Act and the codes of practice that have been carried out by the Investigative Pills Commissioner which is independent and judicially led. Monica Lennon, to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary hinted at some of the tactics used by undercover police officers for the avoidance of doubt that this includes sexual violence, purposes against women by the state, women who were spied on by officers and conned into intimate relationships. The Cabinet Secretary says that he has sympathy for individuals due to the actions of undercover police officers. Surely the Cabinet Secretary must see that by denying a public inquiry here in Scotland that has sympathetic words and inaction is an insult to women, their families and other victims. Cabinet Secretary. I have already set out the reasons why I do not believe that a public inquiry or inquiry here in Scotland is appropriate and the reasons for that and the rationale behind that decision. Not everyone will agree with that, but that is the genuine position that I have come to having considered this issue. I have also highlighted the safeguards that are in place at the present moment. I would hope that any member in considering this report would recognise the safeguards that we have in place within the police service in Scotland and the way in which HMICS have found them to be operating would provide them with reassurance in Scotland. John Mason will be followed by Willie Rennie. With the chief constable resigning, can the cabinet secretary say if the perk investigation will continue and, depending on the outcome of that investigation, would the chief constable be subject to appropriate action? The police investigation review commission has already stated that, given that the chief constable has now resigned with immediate effect from Police Scotland, that their investigation will come to a conclusion that they have obtained to date and will be passed on to the Scottish Police Authority to consider. Any decisions relating to actions that are taken thereafter would be entirely a matter for the Scottish Police Authority. Willie Rennie is followed by Stuart McMillan. We will soon be on our third chief constable and we are on our third chair and third chief executive. Surely the justice secretary has to start to ask himself whether there is something else going on. How long will he allow that to continue before he acts and institutes some change? Cabinet Secretary? In relation to two aspects of it, Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, I believe that a single police force is still the appropriate model for delivering policing in Scotland. The reality is that it had not moved to a single police force in Scotland that we would have found ourselves having found ourselves having to make significant cuts to front-line policing as a result of the austerity pursued by the UK Government and the impact that it would have had on such an important public service. In relation to the issues around the Scottish Police Authority, I have always been of the view that there are certainly areas of improvement that can be made by the Scottish Police Authority and the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority has given a very clear commitment on trying to make those changes do so at speed. What I can say to the member is that I am going to provide the new chair with as much support as I can to help to support her and the board in taking forward those changes as and when that is appropriate. I think that it would be appropriate for all members to give the SPA the space in order to, the new chair the space in order to allow her to take some of these matters. If the new chair is saying to me that there needs to be changes in the way in which it is constituted and the way in which the legislation sets some of those matters out, I will certainly consider those matters. I will look at those issues in a serious way and to see how they can improve the way in which the SPA is operated. That is separate from having moved to a single force. There are certainly areas that can be improved and it is incumbent on all to allow the new chair the space and the opportunity to try and drive forward some of the changes that she wishes to instigate with what support and assistance I can but alongside that, if she is highlighting to me at some point going forward a need for some form of change that she believes that requires Government support in achieving then I will give that very serious consideration in order to make sure that the body works as effectively as possible. Stuart McMillan. Can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber what the process and timescale will be to recruit a new chief constable? Cabinet secretary. The matter for the recruitment of the new chief constable is a matter for the Scottish Police Authority and it will be for a decision for them to now take forward on instigating the process for that recruitment to be undertaken. In the discussion that I had with Susan Deacon earlier today, I know that that is an issue that they are already planning to give consideration to and it will be for the bold to determine what the time frame for that process is. That concludes our statement. We are going to move on to the next item of business in 10307, in the name of Rosanna Cunningham, on stemming the plastic tide. Just to encourage members, I have asked all opening speakers to trim their opening remarks. Even with that, because of the level of interest in the previous statement, we are pushed for time. I am very reluctant to extend decision time beyond 5.30. We have already extended it to 5.30, so I am reluctant to. So I would ask all members to try and speak to their time slots or within them.