 Felly, we will now move on to Conservative Party business, and our first item is a debate on motion 131.0038, in the name of Liam Kerr, on justice. Can I ask all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons? I call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to and move the motion in the name of Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The issue today is the transparency, openness and accountability of the executive branch of Government in Scotland, and this Parliament's ability to scrutinise it effectively and hold it to account. The cabinet secretary's intervention in the SPA decision that the chief constable should return to operational duties and the corresponding absence of transparency, openness and accountability is not only the most recent, but is without doubt the most serious example of the SNP Government's abusive power. For let's be quite clear, it's crucial to understand that the police force is no ordinary public service. It protects the rule of law in our democracy, and its serving officers have the power to lawfully deprive citizens of their most fundamental freedom—the right to liberty. It is therefore essential that the independence of the force's chief constable is protected from political interference. During the scrutiny of the now 2012 Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act, concerns were raised that the independence could be compromised with the centralisation of policing into a single force. As a safeguard to Scottish Police Authority, it was established as the statutory body with not only oversight of the operation of the single force but with the sole responsibility to decide the operational deployment of the chief constable. The decision was also made in exceptional circumstances for the Scottish Government to have a special power to intervene in an SPA decision. The special power has to be invoked for due process to be satisfied in the event of the Scottish ministers intervening in an SPA decision about the operational deployment of the chief constable. In November last year, Dr Ali Malik issued a paper on the Scottish Police Authority and Police Governance in Scotland, and quoted a previous SPA board member stating that they were shocked—absolutely shocked—at the level of government interaction with the SPA. On November 14, prompted by this report, I lodged a topical question and asked the Cabinet Secretary whether he had ever used the special powers to give direction to the SPA. He stated that he had never used his special powers. This response was given five days after we know that Michael Matheson had in fact intervened in the SPA decision on 9 November. The question remains, why did the Cabinet not use his formal power of direction? On 29 November, the cabinet secretary again gave a statement to Parliament regarding policing. In that statement, he omitted from his supposedly full disclosure any reference to the above events. On 10 January, a full nine weeks after his intervention, the cabinet secretary was forced to make another statement to Parliament explaining his actions. That is only after the committee conveners of the Public Audit and Justice committees received evidence that exposed what he had done. Here again, he gave a partial account of events by failing to disclose that his senior civil servant had met Will Gormley in Edinburgh on 30 November to discuss the chief constable's return. Meanwhile, it has been established, thanks to a GMS—good morning Scotland—interview with the cabinet secretary, that neither the meeting with Andrew Flanagan on 9 November nor the meeting with his civil servant and Will Gormley were minited. We will therefore be supporting the Labour amendment. Furthermore, due to the absence of transparency, there is a messy dispute over the facts that Michael Matheson did give Parliament on 10 January. We were told that the police investigation and review commissioner had not been asked for her view on the chief constable's return, but within 24 hours of being asked, the Perk confirmed that the chief constable's return would not interfere with her investigation. It defies credibility that the cabinet secretary had not the wit to make a two-minute telephone call to Perk to establish her view. The justice secretary also said that robust measures to ensure the welfare of staff and members associated with the Perk investigation had not been put in place, but the press release approved by the chief constable's lawyers and the SPA confirmed that necessary steps had been taken to support the welfare of all involved parties. The cabinet secretary also stated that Police Scotland's senior command team knew nothing about the chief constable's return. However, yesterday, DCC Livingstone was unable to categorically state that no one in Police Scotland knew about the chief constable's return. Since 10 January, both the justice secretary and the First Minister, in her responses at FMQs, have attempted to muddy the waters by conflating the duty of the justice secretary to maintain robust and on-going scrutiny of the governance of the SPA with the separate and distinct duty, which, if circumstances justify it, necessitates the use of the special power provision. If the First Minister and her justice secretary do not understand the difference between the robust governance duty and an intervention that necessitates the use of the special power provision, the public will continue to ask legitimate questions about their competence to discharge the duties of the two most powerful officers in Scotland. This is against the background of the cabinet secretary continually stating that he could not interfere in disciplinary issues that are a matter for the SPA and PERT, and key questions still remain unanswered. To date, the cabinet secretary has failed to confirm if he did seek legal advice. Why? Michael Maslin did not inform Parliament at the time about his decision to intervene. Why? There was absolutely no official record of what was said at the meeting on 9 November. Why? Our democratic freedoms are fragile and should never be taken for granted. They rely on openness and transparency. The actions of the justice secretary must now be the subject of a full and independent investigation, for example by the independent advisers on the ministerial code. I move the motion in Liam Kerr's name. Michael Matheson to be followed by Daniel Johnson. On 10 January, I gave a statement to Parliament on the chief constable's leave of absence. This provided Parliament with a clear account of my engagement with the Scottish Police Authority around the chief constable's leave. Investigations by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner were on-going then and remain so. I am still very conscious of the fact in framing my comments to Parliament. I have deliberately focused on my role in seeking assurances that due process is being followed. I will be saying nothing on the substance of the complaints of the investigation and would urge all members to be respectful of the impact of what they say on the people involved. My role as justice secretary is to ensure that the public and this Parliament can have confidence in the way in which the SPA, as a public body, carries out its functions. It is perfectly legitimate to seek assurances that the SPA is carrying out its functions in a way that is proportionate, accountable, transparent and consistent with the principles of good governance, as required by legislation. Effective decision making is underpinned by robust processes and a concern for those who are impacted by those decisions. In this case, I will make some more progress. In this case, that includes seeking assurances that the wellbeing of individuals involved in the complaints had been considered and appropriate bodies had been consulted. The lack of an effective process around those issues meant that I could not have confidence in the decision that had been made. I would like to highlight what the new chair of the SPA, Susan Deacon, said on this issue in a reverence to the Justice Committee on 23 January. She said, had I been in the cabinet secretary's shoes, I would have asked questions about the process as to how that decision had been made. Personally, I think that the cabinet secretary would have been failing in his duty had he not asked those questions. I continue to believe that my actions were entirely legitimate in terms of—let me make progress. I continue to believe that my actions were entirely legitimate in terms of the accountability that public bodies have to ministers for the exercise of their functions. I will give way to Mr Rumbles. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way and I fully understand why he intervened because the process was not right. What I cannot understand is on such an important issue, why did he take two months to inform Parliament that he had done so? As the member will be aware, after my engagement with the chair of the SPA, the SPA board reconsidered the issue on 10 November and made a statement at that point, a public statement at that point, that it would continue the period of leave for the chief constable. There was no cause to issue ministerial direction to the SPA under the action. I would have considered this option only if the chair had been unwilling to respond to my expectation that the board would strengthen its processes around decision making on this issue, but that was not the case. I will give way to Margaret Mitchell. I confirm if he sought legal advice on that and to correct or give the full quote from Susan Dateson, she said that she would have taken a formal minute. Perhaps if the cabinet secretary had done, he would not be before us today. I can assure the member that I took appropriate advice from members throughout this process. What I can also say to the member is that the issue of directions is a formal process that is laid and is set out. That is why I would have considered using that, had the chair not agreed to the points that I raised with him. I did not direct the SPA on what the decision regarding the chief constable's return to what should be. That decision was and is for the SPA to make as a body, which has the statutory duty to consider complaints of misconduct against senior officers. Much attention has focused on the fact that no minute was taken of the meeting of 9 November. The decision on taking a note was a matter for official judgment. Senior officials were clear that the actions from the meeting were for the chair of the SPA to take forward. That is what happened. I, a full account of the meeting, was given in my statement and a follow-up letter to the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee from the director-general Paul Johnstone. Going forward, the Government is committed to ensuring that appropriate records are kept of meetings between the Scottish Government and the SPA, and the Government will therefore be supporting the Labour amendment at the vote later this evening. Paul Johnstone's letter to the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee also made clear that his meeting with the chief constable on 30 November had no bearing on the position that was set out in my statement. As such, there are both ministerial and civil service accounts of events on the record, providing a level of detail and context beyond what any contemporary record would have been likely to provide. I want to turn to the bigger picture. I believe that we can look forward with some confidence. In Susan Deacon's evidence to the Justice Committee on 23 January, he set out her commitment to ensuring that the SPA's future decision-making processes and governance arrangements meet the standards that are expected of a major public body. He has already made improvements by including the setting up of a Complaints and Conduct Committee. I know that Susan Deacon has also considered priority areas for improvement within the SPA. Engaging with stakeholders to inform that, her ambition to align board objectives more clearly with the future needs and direction of the organisation is to be welcomed. I am afraid that time is already pressing. I understand that one of her immediate priorities will be to work with board to ensure that its capabilities to deliver actions, to address the issues highlighted by HMICS or at Scotland and this Parliament. The recruitment campaign, currently under way to identify five new SPA board members, will provide an opportunity to strengthen the board. Let me conclude by saying that I take my responsibilities under the ministerial code very seriously. I and officials have given clear and considered updates to Parliament in circumstances where there is a sensitive and on-going legal process. I stand by the judgments I have made in doing so. I believe that the focus now should be on supporting Susan Deacon as the new chair of the SPA in her work to lead the SPA board in performing its functions in a way that is robust and commands confidence and trust. Thank you, I call on Daniel Johnson to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the context that surrounds this debate. At the end of 2015, Moit Alley resigned from the SPA highlighting the practice of secret meetings and reporting serious issues with regard to the competence of the board. We have had the suspension of several of the most senior officers from the force. Audit Scotland has disclosed serious concerns with regard to the financial decisions and pay-offs to the individuals at the SPA. Most recently, the revelation that not only the cabinet secretary intervened in the case of the chief constable, but that it had been taken place weeks previously and without any record having been kept. The brutal bottom line is this. Whatever the explanations, justifications or reasons for any of those instances taken as a whole, it is a shambolic place for one of our most vital public services to find itself in. Police officers and staff do an excellent job across the country. We should be proud of their professionalism and continued diligence in the way that they carry out their work, but they cannot separate the governance of an organisation from the work that it does. It sets direction and context, and frankly is demoralising for those who work within our police force to find themselves working under such shambolic arrangements. Without proper governance, we are quite simply letting those officers down. It is within that context that the cabinet secretary's actions in November must be viewed. It is impossible to extract his intervention from the wider chain of events and evidence of substandard practice at the SPA. The cabinet secretary is right. There have been failures in due process. There were issues with the way that the SPA conducted the issues around the chief constable's special leave, but those shortcomings were not isolated to that particular instance. They go back months and years. There are serious shortcomings, too, in the answers provided by the cabinet secretary just two weeks ago. The deficiencies in the SPA are not new. They have been clear for months and years. Last year, as Margaret Mitchell pointed out, Allie Malick received a doctor in philosophy from Edinburgh University with his thesis, citing members of the SPA board providing comments, describing it as toothless and raising concerns about political meddling. When people are writing PhD theses about how bad a body or institution is, it is fair to say that there is a problem. The reality is that Michael Matheson has missed opportunities and ignored warnings time and time again. Mr Matheson has been in position since 2014. For four of the five years of Police Scotland's existence, he has been the minister responsible. He is responsible for developing the governance structures, the processes and procedures that surround it. He is responsible for the appointments to the SPA and overseeing its work. Its failings are his failings. If the cabinet secretary is saying that he intervened because the SPA's processes were not sophisticationally robust, those failures are his failures. If he is saying that he intervened because the people at the board were not competent, those failures are his failures. Mr Matheson has had almost four years to ensure that the SPA and its board were up to the job. After that intervention, the question has to be, is he up to his? Ultimately, there is a contradiction in the cabinet secretary's explanations. He points to due process in his amendment. He is right. Due process is of fundamental importance and ultimately what this is about, but has Mr Matheson been following due process himself? Either that was not a serious failure, in which case he shouldn't have intervened, or it was a serious failure, in which case Mr Matheson should have come before this Parliament to report it once it happened, but he only came before this Parliament after the details were leaked and opposition parties demanded his presence. Mr Matheson should have recorded that meeting formally with a minutes and an agenda. Mr Matheson quite simply cannot have it both ways. It was either a serious failure requiring intervention or it was not. Serious decisions demand to be treated seriously. That means recording them and that means accounting for them to Parliament. Mr Matheson fell short of the standards of transparency and accountability that we should expect from ministers of the Government. Our police are dedicated, hardworking and do a phenomenal job serving our communities. They deserve a police force with governance structures that are robust and put questions of policing beyond the speculation that we have seen played out in the press and in this chamber over recent weeks. We now move to the open debate. It is a tight four minutes for speeches. I call Gordon Lindhurst to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Deputy Presiding Officer, we have heard this justice secretary making clear many times and specifically in relation to the case of the chief constable, that structural safeguards and need for due process trump his ability to intervene. On 12 September last year, he said in this chamber that a request had been made by the chief constable for a period of exceptional leave and that, and I quote, there is no ministerial involvement in that process. On 29 November last year, the justice secretary said that his Government created the SPA and the PERC to, and I quote, provide independent investigation and decision making on misconduct matters. Since then, it has become clear that there has been ministerial involvement in the process, and yet this Parliament has had to endure a merry-go-round in order to obtain only half of the story. I say that because of what we have learned over the course of the last days and weeks that key details have been missed out when we have heard from the justice secretary here in updates to this Parliament. The example that my colleague Margaret Mitchell gave on 14 November has already been referred to by her. We have learned that, prior to 14 November, the justice secretary had intervened in the case. Was that intervention lawful if he directed the SPA outside of his formal powers of direction and set out in the act of this Parliament? Or was it not an operational matter that he should steer clear of? What of his obligations under the ministerial code? That states clearly that records should be kept of official meetings that deal with substantive Government business. Surely, involvement by a Government minister in the future of the chief constable and that of Police Scotland is substantive. If that was not substantive Government business, then what is? Reference to the intervention as a mere chat in which Michael Matheson simply asked a few questions will not do. As Dr Kath Murray has pointed out, given the importance of the subject being discussed, it should never have been seen as a chat. Without any contemporaneous minutes, we are not to know whether the cabinet secretary made a request or gave a direction. That is no way to go about Government business. It places the SPA itself in an invidious position, given its obligation to try to carry out its functions in a transparent way. How is it to do so if the justice secretary himself does not act in such a way in his dealings around it and this matter, not to mention this Parliament? For the second founding principle of this Scottish Parliament is that the Scottish Government should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament and executives should be accountable to the people of Scotland. How can we, as parliamentarians, expect to be accountable to the public, if we cannot hold the Government to account because it acts in such a secretive way? I conclude by saying that I support the Scottish Conservative motion today. Thank you very much, Mr Lindhurst. I wrongly signalled that you don't want one minute left to us, looking at the wrong clock, but I've come to my senses. I call Ben Macpherson, followed by Jackie Baillie. Mr Macpherson, please. I note that perk investigations are on-going under a statutory process and address my remarks as such. Today we could have been debating how best to support our police service, how best to assist Police Scotland in managing changing demands and the changing nature of crime in the 21st century. We could have been debating the threats of cybercrime or the future of the European arrest warrant in regard to Brexit. In my view, that would have all been a much more constructive use of parliamentary time. Nevertheless, I respect that the Conservatives have chosen to use their debating time to discuss the content of their motion. I, like the cabinet secretary, take those matters very seriously. Part of the justice secretary's job is to ensure that the SPA, as a public body, is carrying out its duties appropriately, and that is exactly what he has done throughout the chief constable's investigation, special leave and potential return to work. Not only has the justice secretary transparently and proactively given statements to Parliament on this matter, but he has also acted responsibly—responsibly—that the Scottish Conservatives do not know enough about. Yesterday, all of this was backed up by the SPA's new chair, Professor Susan Deacon. For those who were not there or who have not read or observed the statement that was given, she said that, had I been in the cabinet secretary's shoes and I have walked in those types of shoes in the past, I would have asked questions about the process as to how the decision had been made. Personally, I think that the cabinet secretary would have been failing in his duty had he not asked those questions. The position is that the cabinet secretary acted entirely appropriately. I say this because firstly, it is difficult to understand how the decision could have been made by the then SPA board on 7 November to allow the chief constable to return to work without first confirming that doing so would not undermine the independent perk investigations. We should be mindful of those investigations or the confidence of staff who engaged in that process. Secondly, the justice secretary has acted responsibly because Police Scotland's senior command team had not been told about the decision by the then SPA board on 7 November to permit the chief constable to return to work. DCC Ian Livingston confirmed that point very clearly yesterday. The cabinet secretary took the view that those deficiencies in the process of the decision by the then SPA board on 7 November were completely unacceptable. That was the right, proper and responsible thing to do. The important reality is that police performance in Scotland remains robust and public confidence in policing is strong. The majority of people believe that local police, including in constituencies like mine and across the country, are doing a good or excellent job. That is the matter of fact. As Deputy Chief Constable Designate Ian Livingston made very clear yesterday, policing in Scotland is strong and moving forward. In my view, the Opposition should focus more on supporting our police officers. That would be a much better use of this Parliament's focus and time. Jackie Baillie, to be followed by George Adam, Ms Baillie, please. Watching events unfold at the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government has been a bit like watching an episode of the Keystone Cops. For those of us too young to remember the Keystone Cops, let me just share with you that they could be described as demonstrating incompetence on steroids. I probably do a disservice to the Keystone Cops by comparing them to the SPA and to the justice minister, because what we are witnessing here is a soap opera of cringeworthy proportions. Audit Scotland's judgment on the SPA is damning—poor governance, poor financial management, secret meetings, eye-watering and highly questionable payments that are made to staff signed off by the chief executive and then, of course, there is the chief executive himself—rewarded for failure with a substantial exit payment. For the best part of a year, as this was all unfolding, the cabinet secretary for justice did nothing. It cannot have escaped his notice that there were problems. Now he justifies his intervention with the chief constable by saying that we would criticise him if he failed to do so. Let me tell him clearly that the criticism is that you did not intervene to sort out the mess that is the Scottish Police Authority sooner rather than involving yourself in individual cases. Let me turn to the question of minutes of meetings. I have fond memories of when I was a Government minister. There were notes taken of every meeting. There were even notes taken of every phone call. Private secretaries took notes. Departmental officials took notes. Everybody took notes. The civil service culture is to write things down, so it is simply not credible for the cabinet secretary to say that there was no record kept. There were officials' presence and notes will have been taken. I am impressed at the level of detail provided by the cabinet secretary and his officials all from memory more than two months later. Do they think that we are stupid? There is nothing more here than a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, a problem that, funnily enough, was the hallmark of the Scottish Police Authority. They clearly learnt that behaviour from the Scottish Government itself. The last time he made a statement, I asked the cabinet secretary three questions that he failed to answer, but God loves a trier, so let me have a go again. Did the cabinet secretary have any contact with the police investigation and review commissioner prior to, during or after the proposed return of the chief constable? Did the cabinet secretary have any contact with the acting chief constable or the senior management team at Police Scotland prior to, during or after the proposed return of the chief constable? Let me remind him that he referred to that in his statement, but suddenly nobody at the senior command knew anything about it, so either he knew that they hadn't been told and consulted them about it. Lastly, did he or his officials speak to the chief constable since 7 November 2017? I know the answer to the last one, not that the cabinet secretary provided it. It turns out that Paul Johnson, the director general of the justice department, did something that he didn't disclose to the public audit committee when questioned, and they discussed among other things Mr Gormley's return to work. Let me throw another question in for good measure. Did the cabinet secretary know about some of the financial irregularities outlined by Audit Scotland before its report was published? Let me help him out here, because I know that he did, in May, months earlier. It therefore begs the question, what did he do? I think that the answer to that is nothing. He was caught like a rabbit in the headlights. My point, Presiding Officer, and I will finish on this, is that had the cabinet secretary intervened strategically and sorted out the problems at SPA, then perhaps he wouldn't have had to intervene in individual operational decisions, and we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now. I call George Adam to be followed by John Finnie. Mr Adam, please. I have been a member of the Justice Committee for a short period of time, but as this debate has continued, it has been quite interesting to see the difference between the evidence that comes forward and what is presented by some of the Opposition parties. What defies credibility for me is the fact that we are having this debate today after the evidence that was given yesterday at the committee. I found that evidence at the Justice Committee very interesting. After the whole debate was brought forward by the Conservatives, it is at least confused or at the very worst at petty party politics. We know from yesterday's committee that Susan Deacon, the current chair of the Scottish Police Authority, that the cabinet secretary would have been failing in his duty if he had not taken the steps that he did. Those words offered by Professor Deacon are powerful on a number of levels. First, when you have a four-minute speech and you have these quick debates, I have only got time to get my own point across here. First, this is someone who has held high elected office and knows what it is like to be in the ministerial tower. Secondly, this is someone who truly understands how organisations such as SPA should work. I have no intention of heartening or getting involved in the investigations into this matter, but let us look at the issues. On November 7, last year, the Scottish Police Authority, under the leadership of the chair Andrew Flanagan, made a decision to have chief constable Phil Gormley return to work. At that point, we are aware that there were three serious complaints about Mr Gormley and now we are aware that there is another. At the Justice Committee yesterday, after being asked by myself whether anyone from the Scottish Police Authority had contacted chief constable Ian Livingston about, the answer was a definite no. Not only that, but Mr Livingston added that he spoke with Mr Flanagan on more than one occasion after the meeting, so he had more than one opportunity to explain what was happening. Even more shocking is that, during all this, ACC Livingston was not asked to put in any welfare packages of support for any of the members of staff who had put their name forward and complained about Mr Gormley. The problem, in my humble opinion, lies with the lack of communication from the Scottish Police Authority to Police Scotland. At committee, Susan Deacon said that there must be a better and correct relationship between the SPA and Police Scotland. Chief Constable Ian Livingston added that better communication was the key to issues like that. I also have another very serious concern, and I find it difficult to understand how any employee can return to a workplace without confirming that they are doing so, so I would undermine the independent police investigative and review commissioner's investigation into the matters. I believe that the Scottish Government has been entirely transparent about the actions in relation to the chief constable's leave. The justice secretary has acted appropriately and is disappointed that the Tories are attempting to use Police Scotland as a political football. Because, as acting chief constable Ian Livingston explained yesterday, men and women of Police Scotland are still serving and protecting our nation. One example that he gave stands out for me. Since the inception of Police Scotland, no murder has gone unsolved. Acting chief constable Livingston added that he would be interested to see any other jurisdictions that had figures like that. There have been challenges and issues, but Police Scotland still delivers for the people of Scotland. Susan Deacon and Susan Deacon have someone who has plans to improve the SPA and move things forward. Although I will continue to keep a watching brief, I have faith that we are in the right place with this issue and we can move forward. John Finnie, to be followed by Willie Rennie. I would like to agree with my colleague Jackie Baillie when she uses the term soap opera and I too have been extremely critical of the SPA, but I have great hopes for Professor Deacon in the future. I think that the debate has become a wee bit of a soap opera and I have to tell you that it would be an entirely different debate had the cabinet secretary not done what he did. I have to say that and I also want to say about the issue of transparency and I am sure that the Government will reflect that things perhaps could have been done better. In the last session of this Parliament I consulted a member's debate and it was called openness and transparency in local government and I had to abandon that because of the lack of support. So I absolutely am delighted that there is renewed interest in openness and transparency and I look forward to continuing debates on that. I say that because I need no persuading of the benefits that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. The other thing is, of course, that we all have interactions on a daily basis, formality and informality and we often know and indeed we have from Professor Deacon yesterday that it is often the informality that can drive things forward, none of that is to detract from the need for government to be accountable. Yesterday's Justice Minute committee meeting was peppered with almost any suggestion of an interaction was, is there a minute maintained of that and I think we have to have an appropriate balance here. I think that language is terribly important too because the term operational has been used and there has been by a couple of folk at least and talked about the act and I did not know the cabinet secretary had special powers and if he did I am sure he would go back and write a note about some of his meetings but the special powers I am presuming that people are referring to are from the legislation, they are indeed from regulation 5, they are indeed from subparagraph 2, subparagraph 8 which specifically excludes that direction to be used in relation to police operations, absolutely excludes it, well I think it is important to say that there is a very clear and since I am on the topic of talking about legislation I would also like to refer to regulation 2. I do not want to interrupt, I do not want to debate across the chamber please minister and Ms Bailey, thank you. I would like to talk about… You are much more interesting Mr Finnie, proceed. You are very kind. I would like to talk about regulation 2 subparagraph 3 and this relates to the functions of the authority and it says and I quote, the authority must try to carry out its function in a way that is proportionate, accountable and transparent and which is consistent with any principle of good governance which appears to constitute best practice. The absolute very things that Mr Flanagan failed to do, yes absolutely. Margaret Mitchell. Margaret Mitchell 5 of the 2012 act, that gives a special direction. Mr Finnie. Yes indeed that is what I have just read out to the member and hopefully she will get an opportunity to reflect on it in the future. I have to say in relation to this, this was entirely appropriate, we have heard of the implications of this flawed decisions, the implications are not just of the welfare of officers, officers who in a disciplined organisation have had the courage to come forward and make complaints, there was no regard for that, there was also significantly no regard for the operational implications of this and this was covered by acting chief constable Ian Cedry, the implications for the statutory obligations that a chief constable has in relation to a number of outside bodies in relation to Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service and importantly the demarcation regarding discipline, discipline for federated ranks, for superintending ranks. So I have to say in the limited time I have left I hope that we will all be measured in this, I hope that government motion talks about due process, I think due process henceforth would be better if we kept a note of things cabinet secretary and that would be a bit better for us all, thank you. Thank you very much. I call Willie Rennie to be followed by Maurice Corry, Mr Rennie please. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by saying that Justice Secretary was right, I think he was right to ask questions of the chairman of the SPA when the new information about the chief constable returning to work was brought to his attention because the issues we've already addressed in terms of work, in terms of the acting chief knowing and in terms of welfare issues to do with the complainant. I think he was right, if I was in his position I probably would have been asking exactly the same questions. But the central point here and this is where I'm disappointed with the Justice Secretary's response, he's tried to conflate the issue of the substance of his intervention with the process around about that intervention. Now he chose not to tell Parliament and today he's given an explanation that because the SPA changed their mind he felt that there was no need to tell Parliament about his intervention. I think we still would not have known about his intervention if the Sunday Herald had not reported the fact that this intervention had happened and I think the principle of such an important intervention should have been brought before this Parliament for us to scrutinise. He still would have kept it secret unless the Sunday Herald had brought it to our attention. In fact we asked through freedom of information about this issue. We asked on 6 October we got an answer on the 21 of December, seven weeks later that's not unusual. But the response contained no mention of the Justice Secretary's intervention the previous month in November. Now I presume that's because we specified July to October but surely in the interests of transparency and that's what the Justice Secretary is claiming that he's been doing throughout this process. He would have brought to the attention through the FOI his intervention at that stage but he chose again to keep it secret. So not only did he not tell Parliament but he failed to tell us through a genuine freedom of information request. Then I think the final issue where he's got it wrong is the lack of a minute or a note or a record. Whatever definition he wants to give to the bit of paper that described what had happened when he met or spoke to the chairman of the SPA for such an important event not to keep a record of that left him open to the accusations that he's facing today. In fact Susan Deacon said yesterday that it would be appropriate to keep an audit trail for such important events. So it's nothing to do with the substance of his interventions all to do with the process around the transparency of that intervention. The fact that he didn't tell Parliament, the fact that he chose to dodge an FOI request openly and genuinely asked about the intervention but also that he failed to keep a minute. I think that all of this was inevitable. If I can bear the tolerance of some members and remind people what I had said in a speech in 2011, because I think that this sums up the situation, who will appoint every single member of the police authority, the justice secretary? Who will appoint the convener, the justice secretary? Who will set the budget, the justice secretary? Who has to approve every chief officer appointment, the justice secretary? Who has to agree the policing plan, the justice secretary? But who says he won't have any control at all over the police, the man who is the justice secretary? So we might think, I said at that time, that there is no harm in it and what does it matter? I didn't expect ministers, even with those new powers, to order individual arrest. That's not how it's going to happen. But when a crisis happens, when the pressure is on, that is the point at which the justice secretary intervenes and that's exactly what has happened here. We warned about it then and that's exactly what's happened now. He should have been transparent, he should have told Parliament, he should have kept a minute and that is unforgivable that he did not. Thank you. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Richard Lyle. Richard Lyle is the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Corry, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On 29 November 2017, in a statement to this chamber, the justice secretary said, we created the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations Review Commissioner to provide independent investigation and decision making on misconduct matters. This has come only 20 days after the justice secretary made a decision to insert himself into that process, ceasing its ability to make independent decisions. Section 5 of the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 is clear. The Scottish Police Authority must comply with any direction given to it by Scottish ministers but that doesn't include operational matters. I think it will be safe to say that the status of the chief constable is an operational matter. Of course there is a level of ambiguity over what exactly the justice secretary said in his meetings was a then SPA chair because of this Government's continued desire to hide contents of his discussions by not miniting meetings. As was correctly pointed out by Dr Cath Murray of the Scottish Crime and Justice Research and I quote, just a chat, this was a critical meeting, not just a chat. Without minutes it is clear, it is not clear whether the intervention was a request or a direction. The public should have been able to find out what had happened at that meeting between two senior figures involved with the running of the police in Scotland. This is another example of the SNP's attempt to create a secret Scotland where no one is able to hold them to account for their actions. We do not know and I doubt whether we will ever know 100 per cent what was said between the justice secretary and Andrew Flanagan. What we do know is that the justice secretary has acted foolishly and without due regard to this disruption and chaos his actions would cause on the leadership of our police service. This whole episode has brought forward questions about his judgment and leadership. In this country we still operate under the same basic principles outlined when the first professional police force was put into place by Robert Beale. The police are civilians in uniform and they are only able to exercise their powers with the implicit consent of their fellow citizens. Policing by consent only works because it is built upon the base of support within the public for it and this is built upon levels of transparency, integrity and accountability. With his actions the justice secretary has done harm to all three of those. By not miniting his dealings with the SPA he has damaged the public's ability to hold him and the SPA to account for their actions. By not being open and truthful about his dealings with the SPA to this chamber the justice secretary has damaged the integrity of his office and the Scottish Police Authority. Finally, he has brought into question the ability of the Scottish Police Authority to act independently and hold Police Scotland accountable. In conclusion, I believe that it is clear from what I have said and what I have heard from my colleagues on this side of the chamber that the justice secretary has not acted in a transparent manner. That is why it is necessary for members in this chamber to support the motion in Liam Kerr's name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin this afternoon by reflecting on the nature of the motion before the chamber today which I do believe has a personal, deeply personal undertone to it. That is why I want to start my initial remarks to focus on my personal experience of the cabinet secretary for justice. I first met Michael Matheson some 21 years ago when he was standing as the SNP candidate for Hamilton North in Belsil during the election in 1997. At that time, I was a member of the Belsil branch of the SNP and he was nominated by the Moss End branch as a constituency candidate. He was an excellent candidate. I believe that this was his first attempt as a candidate. Can I just call for order? Can I just gently try, Mr Lyle? This is not a job reference. I hope that you are going to speak. It may be not, but I am. Please sit down just now, Mr Lyle. I understand that you are speaking to the Conservative motion which is about acting transparently or openly when members regarding the chief council's message, especially in potential... I would like you to speak to that, please. I believe that he is honest, forthright and someone who could be relied on every opportunity to provide accurate information. I was very impressed by the cabinet secretary. I remember saying to him, I will go far, son. Sorry, I did not keep a record of the minute of the meeting. For the Tory party to bring this debate to the chamber today is frankly outrageous and shallow. As the First Minister touched on last week, the cabinet secretary acted entirely appropriately in questioning whether the police investigations of the review commissioner, as well as the senior command that Police Scotland had been consulted giving the on-going investigations into allegations about the chief constable. For Ruth Davidson, Margaret Mitchell and the Tories to assert that Michael Matheson's procedural questioning was unlawful is totally unjustified. As the First Minister also noted, the justice secretary is accountable to this Parliament and has the responsibility to ensure that the police authority is carrying out its duties properly. By asking the questions that he asked, the cabinet secretary took steps to ensure that the SPA was handling its investigation appropriately. Indeed, after questioning the SPA, the cabinet secretary found that the SPA had not taken the necessary steps to ensure and support the welfare of all parties in the investigation. Moreover, it is clear that the questions asked by the cabinet secretary could not be satisfied due to the process that had been followed in the SPA investigation and found that Police Scotland's senior command team had not been told about the decision to permit the chief constable to return to work. To reiterate, the cabinet secretary was simply doing his job for the Tories to suggest that he was doing otherwise as poor form and shows how shallow they can go. On the topic of transparency, Ruth Davidson, Margaret Mitchell and the Tories' crime has been absent. The Scottish Government has taken all the appropriate measures to ensure the complete transparency. Now the Tories' criticism is unjustified. It is incredibly hypocritical as well. Weekly the opposition parties criticise the Scottish Government for not intervening enough in Police Scotland. Now they are complaining that our cabinet secretary is asking legitimate questions. As the First Minister mentioned, if Michael Matheson had not asked those questions, the Tories and others would rightly be asking why he hadn't. Imagine that he would be going hammer and tong. Why didn't the cabinet secretary do this? Why didn't he do that? Why did the cabinet secretary get involved? Tories' position is riddled with hypocrisy. Enclosing? No, it's not enough. I could go on. Enclosing? Enclosing? I'm going to use an analogy from a rather famous comment made by Senator Benson to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate. I know Michael Matheson. Michael Matheson is a friend of mine. Michael Matheson is an exceptional cabinet secretary. Let me, and can I suggest, you accept his word in this issue. Now can you please conclude? Thank you. Thank you. Please sit down. Thank you very much. I just say to any members that it's for the chair to decide when a speaker concludes, and I had given it a long intervention on that speaker, so he got some time to make up. But I won't be indications from the florist of whether or not somebody is getting the right amount of time. That's a job for me. I now move to closing speeches. Daniel Johnson, please. Four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm not entirely sure how to follow that up, but this is a serious debate with serious implications on the way that our police force is run and governed. Ben Macpherson spoke at some length asking the question whether or not there weren't more important things to discuss. I'd put it quite simply, Presiding Officer. There is no more important point than the governance and its effectiveness of our policing in this country. That governance has had fundamental and very serious questions put to it. It is vital that we discuss it, and frankly, it is vital that we have transparency regarding the governance and the decisions that are made around it. Indeed, other members have questioned evidence and what evidence we have, but if you were to listen to them, you would think that evidence only started in September last year. That is quite simply ridiculous, as a number of members have pointed out that there were concerns at the very inception of this legislation. There were concerns about the loss of local accountability, the effect of oversight, separation from ministers, when the legislation was first table and right the way through the debate, through stages 1, 2 and 3. Indeed, since Police Scotland has been formed, the SNP has formed. They have interfered with policing matters. There has been interference regarding stop and search from Macaskill. There has been interference regarding routine arming. There has been interference regarding control rooms. The interference around operation matters has now extended into issues with regard to the governance and decision making and the failures of governance and oversight of the SPA. Ministers are directly involving themselves in decision making. I will take the other point from Ms Finnie. John Finnie. I am very grateful for the member who has taken intervention. The view of the member that the cabinet secretary, the Government, this chamber should have no view on the routine arming of police or indeed the additional arming of police. Daniel Johnson. Of course we should take a view on policy matters, but it is how those policy matters are followed up and informed and the communication between ministers and the police which has to be mediated through the Scottish Police Authority as laid down in the law. That is what the statute says and that is the law that ministers should be following because it is fundamentally important that the SPA is robust but most importantly that it operates independently of government. That is both a matter of principle but also a matter of law. Maurice Corry was absolutely right to point out the important principles that underpin our policing. Policing by consent, policing by public trust and the independence of the SPA is one of the fundamental points that underpins that because the police cannot be viewed as an organ of ministerial direction and ministerial control. That is why the independence of the police is so important. That is why the legislation is set out as it is and that is why questions around the decision making and whether ministers have been involved in those decision making processes is so key. It is also, as has been pointed out, a matter of law. The chief constable is accountable to the SPA. The SPA in turn is accountable to the minister. Direction can only take place from ministers but only if Parliament is notified and it was not. There is a serious question around that. Was that direction or not? It was not simply a question. The cabinet secretary's words were very clear in his statement two weeks ago. He made a request, a request of the chair of the SPA, a request that the chair complied with. That is the cabinet secretary's word. Can he please explain to me the difference between a request and a question? It is fundamentally important and indeed, how can we ever know without a proper record of what that request was and how it was made? The effectiveness of those issues that I said in my opening speech ultimately reflects on his, because they are his appointments. The SPA has operated under his direction and control and ultimately is why he must answer for its failures because those failures are his failures. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. I call Michael Matheson. Close with the Government. Five minutes please, Mr Matheson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I set out in the course of my opening remarks, I set out very clearly the nature of my engagement with the SPA regarding the return of the chief constable from his period of leave. I want to try to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised during the course of this debate. As I set out my statement and I, as I set out again here this afternoon, there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that there were significant deficiencies in the process that the SPA had applied to their decision-making process on 7 November. It was clear that, from the discussion that I had with the chair of the SPA, that there had been no account taken of the perks investigation into the complaints that they were already life, that there had been no contact with them in order to understand what impact it would have had on the investigation should the chief constable return to his duties. That was set out in the letter by the commissioner herself to the Public Audit Committee in December or January of this year. As we know as well, there was no engagement with the head of Police Scotland at that particular point, DCC Livingston, who is the deputy chief constable designate in regard to managing any return of the chief constable. There were no welfare arrangements put in place for those who are complainants, including the need to make sure that welfare measures were put in place for the chief constable in returning to his duties, given that there were complainants who worked within the organisation. Keep in mind that this is an organisation that has a whistle-blowing policy to try to encourage people to have the confidence to come forward and to make complaints and to raise concerns as and when it is appropriate. Had I known I need to make progress in closing here, Mr Rennie, my friend, sorry, because there is a limited time, had I known there had been no engagement with PUC, no engagement with the command team in Police Scotland, no welfare arrangements put in place for the staff who had made complaints or even the chief constable. I have absolutely no doubt that all of the members who are in here seeking to criticise me here this afternoon would have been in here shouting even louder about my failure to take action on that matter. Let me turn to what appears to be this inherent confusion that the Conservatives in particular have around the issue of operational responsibility. It does seem to be somewhat ironic that I am now being accused of intervening in our operational policing decision and being criticised for that matter. Back in the 17th of October, Liam Kerr issued a press release, a press release entitled Matheson, a justice secretary who will not take his responsibilities for policing. He goes on to accuse me of referring matters as being the responsibility of the chief constable when it comes to issues relating the chief inspector's posts and how many are unfilled, performance and control rooms, the cost of overtime in Police Scotland, control room in Dundee, staff, IT outages and database vulnerable persons. All operational matters. He goes on to say that this is the behaviour of a justice secretary who does not want to take his responsibilities for his brief. All operational policing matters. In contrast to that, an issue that is not an operational policing matter is an issue that clearly falls within the responsibility of the SPA rather than Police Scotland. It is a point about governance and it is a matter that has got clear accountability to ministers on. The actions of the Conservative Party this afternoon reflected against the press release back in October just shows the absolute hypocrisy at the very heart of our attack this afternoon. We have the spectacle of Margaret Mitchell appearing to question whether it was true that welfare arrangements may have been put in place when, as a deputy chief constable designated, he said categorically, no, there were no welfare arrangements in place. I think that it is completely inappropriate to question Ian Livingstone's views on the issue. I am very conscious of time and I note that the Conservatives do not like to hear some of the truth and to reflect on the hypocrisy of their stance here this afternoon. I also want to make it very clear that in the new chair that we have within the SPA, I am confident that she will take forward a range of measures to improve the performance in the way in which the SPA operates. She has already established the Conduct and Complaint Committee of the SPA, which will consider those issues going forward. She has also made it very clear that she intends to operate in a very, very different way in the months and years ahead since she has arrived as the chair of the SPA. Now is the time to give the new chair of the SPA the opportunity to make these improvements. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much. It has been a contentious and at times highly charged debate. Despite the cabinet secretary's attempts to introduce ancillary matters, it predicates on a very narrow motion. Whether or not Parliament believes that this justice secretary has acted transparently and openly when updating members over the chief constable matter. Let me be clear. This is not about whether the decision that the chief constable should return to work was right or wrong. This is about whether the chief constable has acted in a legal and transparent manner. Transparency and openness is imperative when dealing with matters such as these. Maurice Corry was right. Policing by consent only works because it is built upon public support. That in turn is built upon transparency, integrity and accountability. Margaret Mitchell opened with a key point. During scrutiny of what became the 2012 Police and Fire Reform, Scotland Act 2012, concerns were raised that police independence could be compromised as a function of the centralisation of policing to a single force. As a safeguard, the SPA was established as a statutory body with not only oversight of the operation of a single force, but with sole responsibility to decide deployment of the force's senior officers. The justice secretary has been clear that he could not interfere in disciplinary matters eight times, but Gordon Lindhurst specifically referenced that on 12 September, for example, the justice secretary told this Parliament that a request was made by the chief constable to ask for a period of exceptional leave and that there is no ministerial involvement in that process. Maurice Corry made a further related point on 29 November. Cabinet Secretary said, we created the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigations Review Commissioner to provide independent investigation and decision making on misconduct matters. Yet, it transpires that less than three weeks earlier, he had apparently inserted himself into that process. Or had he? Because we just don't know whether or not the justice secretary made a possible unlawful interference in an independent decision of the SPA behind closed doors because it was apparently unrecorded. No, I won't take an intervention, thank you. Gordon Lindhurst referenced Dr Cass Murray, the respected criminal justice academic, who said, this was a critical meeting, not just a chat. It is not clear whether the intervention was a request or a direction. These things matter. Yes, they do. Our analysis of the ministerial code of conduct, the civil service code and guidance for civil servants shows that ministers and civil servants should have made an official record of the crucial meeting because records should be kept of official meetings that deal with substantive government business. If a meeting to discuss the future of Scotland's chief constable isn't a substantial piece of government business, then I don't know what is. But there is a further lack of clarity, because on January 11, the justice secretary told BBC Scotland that he would be happy to release minutes of his meeting with the SPA. But later that day, a Scottish Government spokesman said that this would not be possible as no minutes of the meeting had been taken. Where is the transparency? And our motion also calls for openness. This is an incredibly serious matter and a meeting, the result of which has consequences for people's lives. But when the cabinet secretary gave a statement to Parliament on the 29th of November regarding policing, he omitted any reference to the above events. As Mike Rumble's intervention pressed, it was only on the 10th of January a full nine weeks after this intervention that the cabinet secretary saw fit to make a statement to Parliament explaining his actions. The cabinet secretary further failed to disclose at this point that his senior civil servant had met with film Gormley in Edinburgh on the 30th of November to discuss the same matter in another unminuted meeting. During that statement, I specifically asked the cabinet secretary if he'd taken legal advice because he may have broken the ministerial code if not. I still await an answer, although I was very interested in Margaret Mitchell's intervention to which he replied that he took advice from members. Let's hear more about that. The Labour amendment calls for future meetings between the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government to be minuted and references the get it minuted campaign. I've listened to Daniel Johnson speaking in support of the amendment. He said, Minutes are fundamental to transparency and therefore good government. It is a good point and it's well made and I can confirm that the Scottish Government will be pleased to support the amendment this evening. What did I say? Scottish Conservatives next Scottish Government will support the amendment. Presiding Officer Presiding Officer it is clear from the debate this afternoon that throughout this process the justice secretary has not acted in a manner that is either transparent or open. Greater transparency and public accountability is mandatory. It is simply not acceptable for a government to behave in this way. Willie Rennie was right when he said, the justice secretary chose not to tell Parliament. He chose not to keep a minute and he should have been transparent. Margaret Mitchell properly stated, our democratic freedoms are fragile and should never be taken for granted. They rely on openness and transparency. I urge Parliament to vote for the motion today to send the signal to this place to the people involved in this process and above all to the people of Scotland that this is not acceptable. Starting now and going forward transparency and openness must be the watch words by which this Government operates. Thank you very much. That concludes this debate on justice. I will allow a few minutes for the front benches to take the place and for Mr Kerr to get his breath back because I believe he is speaking again and moving the next motion.