 everybody? The first item of business today is a member's business debate, motion number 3 in the name of Neil Findlay on Scotland, pictured and undercover policing. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I remind members that with regard to subjudice, your remarks should focus on the generality of the issues being raised in the motion and the call for the inquiry to be extended to Scotland and not about individual cases? Dwi'n ochon bŵr, oe'r arbennig ar gyfer ddaeth iawn, ym mwyn i gael drwsau'n eu arbennig ar gyfer y bleiddoch chi, a i ddweud mwy o'r Fynle i gael ffynliol, dweud ddweud. Yn gyfer y funud yma ymy yw, Cyf Dalethau Children, Rydych chi arbennig ar gyfer gan hyn oes ddweud i ddweud ei ffynliol i gael ddweud, Fymaerdych yn cynnig o'r dros, rwyf i ddweud i ddweudyn detained at allanu. Bydd o nosol yn gweld, mae'r dwylo hyn yn hyn yn ystom yn y cael wichtigego â'r powerau ym threatens. Sut gallnet Punch-onarr arall nawr os mor arwater hefyd wedi'i pa fath skipominous – maen nhw'n dweud y Chnydd nidai gennymeik mction a mai'r arfawr am wee. Ricell ole wrthchu iawn ac nidai'n ddweud i'u eithaf rhai harbor ي genausoar a wardiau le confidently uniaethz nhw gan fel y rhai useud bydd aman dechrau i siam yn Woran d favouritest gwbeithin gall мет Ysgwyr ans teimlo gyda removed that and protected with robust processes and systems to in place to prevent its erosion? This is, I believe, vital in maintaining good police, community relations and public confidence. When things happen that damage and dent that confidence, it has to be dealt with swiftly, transparently and robustly, otherwise it will leave a lingering sense of the closing of ranks, cover-up and often unwillingness to admit feeling I know things in wrong doing. The police are not and cannot be above the law. They themselves are responsible for implementing. I want to focus on the experience of social justice on environmental campaigners and their interaction with a unit of undercover police officers in the Special Demonstration Squad the National Public Order Intelligence Unit. On too many occasions over the years we've seen the following formula play out, an incident or event takes place, the police version of events and the experience of people there at the time does not match up. A version of events of what happens is spun through media outlets and becomes the accepted wisdom. People are arrested and charged, the justice system gets involved, questionable evidence or downright lies are told in court, people are convicted of crimes they often didn't commit and lives are ruined or very badly affected. But then a campaign begins and when the truth starts to come out, the spin unravels, the lies are exposed, the real story begins to be dragged out of the darkest nooks and crannies of our justice, legal and security systems, Hillsborough, phone hacking, the Gullford 4, the Stephen Lawrence case, the blacklisted construction workers are just a few of the most high profile cases. All began with a contested version of events, all covered in a cloud of suspicion and cover-up, all eventually exposed as organised conspiracies involving various sections of the establishment and the state machine. It is the work of justice campaigners across the UK that has forced the hand of the UK government to establish the inquiry into undercover police and chaired by Sir Christopher Pitchford. The purpose of that inquiry is to inquire into and report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh forces in England and Wales since 1968. However, that inquiry will not, I repeat, will not examine events that took place in Scotland, the activities of undercover officers operating here with or without the authority of senior officers here, it won't examine the role of Scottish officers working undercover, the code they operated under, control systems, the ethics and legality of what went on here in our country and it won't examine the impact on Scottish political, environmental and social justice campaigners and their families. There is now a growing body of evidence that tells us that the SDS and the NP-OIU operated in Scotland monitoring a broad range of campaigns and campaigners. The undercover officers engaged in wholly unethical and illegal practices whilst operating here, including duping women into intimate relationships, some resulting in children being born and most disturbing of all, the use of the identity of dead children to maintain cover for their assumed identity. We know that a growing number of Scottish officers were seconded or employed by those units. The new chief constable played a senior management role. Eleanor Mitchell was involved, someone who went on to become the head of professional standards in Scotland, at Police Scotland, despite being a senior officer in an organisation whose professional standards have been wholly discredited. We know that 100 officers have been identified as having worked in those units. We know that, in astonishing 460 organisations, many operating in Scotland were monitored. We know more and more Scots are coming forward as victims of those discredited practices, and many more are unaware that they were victims. People like Nick Maccarrell, a law lecturer at Caledonian University, active in the anti-poverty campaigns at the G8, found himself on a construction industry blacklist having never worked in the sector. Eleanor Hudson, who works for an SNP MP and who spoke very bravely and publicly in this Parliament at a meeting that we held about her knowledge of the role of notorious officer, Mark Kennedy, an undercover officer who operated in Scotland. Eleanor Hudson was blacklisted having never worked in the industry, and there are many, many, many more. We know about the collaboration between the big construction companies and the intelligence services. Today, under the privilege that this Parliament gives me, Gail Burton, the former head of human resources that can stay in construction, who now works for the Jockey Club, has been identified as the key link between the construction industry, the consulting association and special branch. Her name is identified as the source of information on files of blacklisted Scottish workers. We know of the involvement during the 1984 minor strike of Stella Whitehouse, now Dame Stella Remington, former head of MI5, who was regularly on the picket line at Polkemic Cauvery, not three miles from my house during that period. All of this and more should come out in the pitchford inquiry, but, as it stands, none of it will, because Scotland is not included in the remit of the inquiry, only England and Wales. When I raised this at these issues at first, the cabinet secretary was dismissive. Now, under pressure, he has joined the call by around 50 Members of Parliament, many of them in this Parliament, members of the UK Parliament and the European Parliament to extend the inquiry. I am this day international support that call to, and I welcome his newfound support. However, let me be absolutely clear. If the Home Secretary fails to extend pitchford, then we must, must, must have a Scottish inquiry. We cannot have a situation where the only people in the mainland UK not to have access to this inquiry and to potential justice for them and their families are Scots. With such known and admitted abuses carried out in Scotland on Scottish citizens, the Scottish Government has a duty not to side with the establishment but to ensure that the truth comes out. Now, I know the police, the judiciary and others will pressure the cabinet secretary to resist. Those are the very same forces that pressured politicians not to go near the Lawrence case, the Birmingham and Guilford cases and the Hillsborough cases. But brave decisions were made in the interests of truth and justice. So, I urge the minister, I urge the cabinet secretary to do the right thing and take the brave and right decision and initiate an independent public inquiry in Scotland should it not prove possible to extend pitchford. I now call Douglas Ross. Around four minutes please, Mr Ross. A literal leeway if you require it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate Neil Findlay on securing parliamentary time through his member's business motion today and recognise his continued efforts on the subject to bring this serious issue to Parliament on behalf of his constituents in the Lothians region and indeed people across Scotland. The implications understandably have a broader application across the UK and I think it's right and appropriate that we have the opportunity to address them here in the Scottish Parliament today in light of recent developments. In Scotland, as we all know, transparency and policing has dominated both the political and the public discourse since the creation of the single police force over three years ago. In particular, debates around Police Scotland's firearms standing authority and stop and search tactics have underscored the public's appetite for honesty and openness where policing is concerned. Subsequent reports on those issues from the SPA and HMICS have rightly acknowledged the critical importance of the principle of policing by consent and the statutory principles of engagement and accessibility. If I can say that the very recent discussion and announcement that we had in Scotland about the uplift in armed officers was handled very well by Police Scotland because it engaged at an early stage. It had the potential to take on public criticism but because they were upfront and engaged with parliamentarians and the public at an early stage I think they gained from that and I think that that's a useful way to go forward. On that point about engagement and accessibility, I was interested to read Sir Christopher Pitchford's opening statement regarding the inquiry into undercover policing where he states, as far as I'm aware, this is the first time that undercover policing has been exposed to the rigor of public examination. The inquiry's priority is to discover the truth. This is a public inquiry to which, as the name implies, the public will have access. So this transparent approach is extremely commendable and a commendable one that must be taken forward but as the motion from Neil Findlay emphasises and is explained it is nevertheless problematic as the territorial approach and scope of the inquiry is currently limited to just England and Wales. So as such, while Scotland can certainly benefit from the recommendations of the inquiry's final report, the Scottish public and those inadvertently and unwittingly involved will not learn the facts in relation to the covert operations, as Neil Findlay has said, implemented north of the border. This asymmetrical situation seems fundamentally unfair. While we previously were under the impression that evidence from relevant Scottish witnesses would be admissible to the inquiry, there is no guarantee that that will be the case, given the limited terms of reference. Therefore, Scottish Conservatives do support the extension of the Pitchford inquiry to Scotland and that is why, if this extension is not possible, we agree with Neil Findlay's point that we must urge the Scottish Government to establish its own inquiry into undercover policing. We all know from a very useful briefing from Amnesty International and other information that we have surrounding this debate, it's not just Scotland that wants to be included in the Pitchford inquiry, there are very good examples from Germany as well. However, it's important to recognise that such an undertaking will be logistically complex, given the different jurisdictions involved, but I genuinely hope that those difficulties can be overcome. We must also be aware of the operational imperatives that might serve to limit the comprehensiveness of the inquiry equally where possible. We must not let those imperatives act as an obstacle to the truth. However, let us not try to run before we can walk. I understand that discussions are under way between the Scottish Government and the Home Secretary on this matter and I look forward to listening to the minister's response to this debate and to tell us how that is progressing. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am encouraged as this new parliamentary term gets under way, there is cross-party consensus that transparency is the key where policing is concerned. Policing by consent is a central act of our society and we must do all that we can to ensure that it remains very much the case. I very much welcome today's debate and the opportunity to highlight the issues in the Scottish Parliament. I thank Neil Findlay for securing the debate and his contribution today, which effectively sets out the challenge that we face in Scotland in securing transparency, accountability and ultimately justice for people who have been affected by undercover policing of the nature described this morning. I would like to give credit to all the activists and campaigners who have, often in the face of strong resistance, relentlessly raised those concerns until they have got action. It is crucial that a Government has confidence in the way that the police operate and I recognise that undercover policing is important to detecting and preventing criminal activity. I want to look at cases that involve child abuse or human trafficking or organised crime, that there is an element there that is necessary. However, any kind of surveillance has to be proportionate, clearly justified and robustly regulated. The scale of the concerns over historic undercover policing methods, concerns that are stretching back to the 1960s, are still significant that the Home Secretary announced a judge-led inquiry in March 2015 to be led by Lord Justice Pitchford. That was the right thing to do. The police across the UK have a difficult job to do and they deserve our support. It shows strength and commitment to the force to be able to scrutinise the practices and be prepared to be accountable. I welcome the full commitment to the inquiry. The monitoring and infiltration of political activists and trade unionists blurred the distinctions between criminal activity and legitimate process. During questions at Westminster on the inquiry, Joan Riddock MP outlined her own experience. In 1981, I was elected as the chair for the campaign for nuclear disarmament. Two years later, an MI5 agent, Cathy Masseter, blew the whistle on the surveillance, the phone taps and the collection of special branch reports on me. She cited political interference in the service and said that what had happened was illegal and she resigned. In 1987, I became a member of this house and took the loyal oath. In 1997, I became a minister and I subsequently signed the Official Secrets Act. How is it that surveillance was carried out on me for all that time? I want to know and to get the minister to understand who authorised that surveillance and on what grounds was it authorised. He needs to answer those questions because this is a political issue. In the same session at Westminster, Jack Straw spoke about the time when he was home secretary. He was the home secretary who ordered the inquiry into Stephen Lawrence. During that debate, Jack Straw said that he might have been subject to unlawful surveillance when he was home secretary. That is an extremely complex situation. It is not just about how the police made the decisions but who authorised the decisions and the extent of political direction in police operational matters. No one could fail to be shocked by the reports of police surveillance, which employed unethical and often illegal methods. We have read allegations that SDS officers engaged in sexual relationships and even father children than leaving those women as if the relationships had never occurred. There have been horrific reports of the identities of dead children being used for covert identities. Between 1968 and 2008, it is judged that some 42 deceased children were used to create a cover legend for undercover officers. While the Metropolitan Police have apologised, the family still do not know if their child's identity was used. That is a hugely significant inquiry. Its remit is to inquire into and report on undercover police operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces in England and Wales since 1968, a period of some 48 years. That is such a long period of time that requires extensive and studied attention. However, the inquiry does not extend to Scotland and that is not acceptable. I agree with the cabinet secretary and his recent letter to Neil Findlay that a single comprehensive inquiry would be the best solution here. It is difficult to see how this situation does not impact on Scotland and difficult to accept that the operational activity by the Metropolitan Police units under inquiry are not relevant to Scotland. The minister today is not able to answer for the Home Secretary, but it would be helpful if she could outline discussions or exchanges that are on-going between the Scottish Government and the Home Office on the matter. If the inquiry is not extended, and there is an issue of expediency here, as Neil Findlay outlined in terms of the timescale for the inquiry, we are already about a year into the inquiry, but if the inquiry is not extended, then evidence that suggests covert police operations that violated trust and breached intimacy for individuals in Scotland must be delivered through a Scottish inquiry and justice be delivered for those potential victims. I hope that the minister will give a commitment to continue to pursue extending the pitchford inquiry with the UK Government, but if that is denied and at this point in time that looks like that is the case, the Scottish Government must commit to a full Scottish inquiry. I call Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I add my congratulations to Neil Findlay for securing the time for this debate and for choosing to bring such an important motion to the chamber for the debate. It is perhaps a little surprising that more members have not chosen to be with us to debate what is a really important issue and which I think should deserve the degree of cross-party concern and consensus that I think those of us who have chosen to be here would hope for it. Mr Ross talked about cross-party consensus and concern, which relates to that issue as well, and I would have hoped to have seen a little more of that demonstrated by presence in the chamber. It is a necessary but uncomfortable truth that not only is policing a difficult job but that undercover policing has to happen as well, and it will always raise profound ethical challenges in the way of its conduct. Speaking just weeks after the political assassination of a politician in this country by a far-right activist, it is very clear that there are those who pose threats to public safety, to groups of people. A great many people experiencing the wave of Brexit racism over the last week or two will be also concerned that far-right and racist movements are policed carefully and rigorously so that the kind of threats that we see in other countries do not grow to that promise in this country. There are others who pose threats, as Clare Baker said, in terms of organised crime, the abuse of children and other vulnerable people, and of course there will always be a need for difficult and challenging operations that are undercover, which exist in the interests of the common good, in the interests of all of our safety. However, when those operations happen, it is critical that they are held to the very highest standards and held to a high standard of transparency as well. Yet, such is the ubiquity of those kinds of operations in legitimate democratic activism in our society over generations, the environment movement and the peace movement movement. It is a running joke to speculate and wonder which activists might be plants, might be acting in some undercover capacity. The most frequent running joke is that it is quite handy if you have one involved because they have usually got a van and that is really useful for all of these small community-led activist movements. However, when those kind of movements—people campaigning on climate change or against fossil fuels, people campaigning within their trade unions, people campaigning against nuclear weapons—when those legitimate and necessary movements in our society are under threat for their ability to operate democratically and to act in the name of those causes, we have lost something absolutely fundamental. That kind of undercover policing operation is absolutely counter to the principles of a free and democratic society. Mr Fenley circulated a briefing for today's debate, and he quoted a certain Michael D Higgins, who just yesterday so impressed all of us speaking to the chamber. The briefing quoted him in his time as an MP when he wrote, It is of grave concern that this type of activity undermines respect for the law and it is very sinister that it can damage good causes. One of the arguments that he put to us in the chamber this week, President Higgins, was that the principle of free speech must include the freedom to speak the truth. If we are not free to do that, if we are not free to give vent to the causes that many people struggle for in society, then we have lost something absolutely fundamental. I would endorse absolutely the terms of Mr Fenley's motion and the insistence that those matters be held to proper scrutiny and transparency. I know that Theresa May has other things on her mind at the moment, but I think that we might turn that into an opportunity. If the Scottish Government is resolute in insisting that the inquiry be extended to cover Scotland, let us say that she must do that before she demits office in her current term as Home Secretary. Let us give a clear deadline for her to make that decision and make it equally abundantly clear that, if she fails to do so, the Scottish Government will ensure that those matters are held to scrutiny in a Scottish inquiry. Mr Harvie was the last of the open speakers in this debate, and I now ask Annabelle Ewing to wind up this debate, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate this morning. I would like to thank members, including Mr Fenley, who secured the debate for their contributions. Indeed, a number of interesting points have been made. In fact, there was a previous member's debate on the subject, which took place on 6 January of this year. Since that time, the call for the Pitchford inquiry to be extended to Scotland has been steadily gathering support, and I commend Mr Fenley's efforts in that regard. The cabinet secretary to respond directly to some of the points raised this morning. The cabinet secretary last wrote to the Home Secretary on 25 May of this year to push for the inquiry to be able to deal with the actions of relevant Metropolitan Police units in Scotland. Indeed, there are now many voices that have joined the Scottish Government in calling for the inquiry to be allowed to consider the operational evidence, irrespective of which jurisdictional boundaries it actually crosses. The operational activity that the Pitchford inquiry has been set up to look at was not confined to England and Wales. Indeed, the operations were multi-jurisdictional. Mr Fenley referred to the interests of people on the mainland of the UK, but he may be aware that the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland has also written on a number of occasions to the UK Home Secretary seeking to allow the inquiry to be able to follow any evidence, if uncovered, that leads into Northern Ireland. That is an important point for members to be aware of. Indeed, the only way that the Pitchford inquiry can consider—the full picture, the whole picture and the complete picture, as Clare Baker alluded to—is for it to be allowed to follow the evidence irrespective of geography. The Scottish Government absolutely agrees that the inquiry will look at the events that took place in Scotland, if that is where the evidence leads. A single comprehensive inquiry that is able to gather all the evidence in a coherent manner would best serve the public interest on this occasion. Indeed, an inquiry that is limited simply to England and Wales risks doing a great disservice to those who believe that they have been adversely affected by the operations of the Metropolitan Police Units in Scotland. While the Scottish Government, Presiding Officer, is indeed, and quite rightly so, accountable to this Parliament for policing, it is not responsible for the activities of the Metropolitan Police Service or its specialist units. Rather, it is indeed the UK Home Secretary who is ultimately responsible, although, in terms of its procedures, the Deputy Mayor of London actually has a role to play. However, it is the UK Home Secretary who ultimately is responsible to the Westminster Parliament for those matters. The Scottish Government has listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward over recent months for a separate Scottish inquiry. Of course, the Scottish Government has a great deal of sympathy for those who seek truth and justice in those matters. Where police forces do not live up to the high standards that are expected of them, they should indeed be held to account, and there should be absolutely nowhere to hide. However— Neil Findlay. Is the minister saying then that if the Home Secretary does not expand pitchford, that there will be no Scottish inquiry? If that is the case, can she say very clearly today that those victims in Scotland will have no route to justice? Let us be upfront about this and let us be straight. Let us not be very choosey with our language. Let us make it very clear as to what you mean today. Annabelle Ewing. I thank Mr Findlay for his intervention. The point that I am making and the point that others have made including Clare Baker is that the best approach that serves best the public interest of those who may have been adversely affected is to have a whole complete inquiry, which is the pitchford inquiry. We are focused on having the UK Home Secretary extend the inquiry to allow it to consider operations in Scotland if that is where the evidence leads. That is our focus and I would encourage members in the chamber to exercise some degree of influence to the extent that they can. I would suggest to Mr Ross that he urges his party colleague the UK Home Secretary soon perhaps to be the UK Prime Minister to do the right thing and extend the inquiry. I would also urge perhaps that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—although there is not one at the moment but there might be one soon—can be brought to bear via that route and indeed on the current leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons. There are other routes as well to bring pressure to bear and we are focused—the Scottish Government is absolutely focused—on having the inquiry extended to Scotland, I think that Mr Ross wanted. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. She was putting a challenge on to Scottish Conservatives on Scottish Labour and every other politician in here. I think that we are doing as much as we can. I jointly signed the letter that Mr Finlay sent out and Scottish Conservatives, as I said in my speech, support the Scottish element to be included in the pitchford inquiry. If the minister is asking other parties to do something, can she give a guarantee that if those efforts are unsuccessful, the Scottish Government will set up an inquiry separate in Scotland? That is the guarantee that we need from the Scottish Government if all other efforts fail but they are on-going. Annabelle Ewing I thank Mr Ross for his intervention. What I would say this morning is that the Scottish Government is absolutely focused on having this inquiry extended to Scotland because that is the approach that best serves the public interest of those who may have been affected in Scotland. That is what we will continue to do. I really need to make a bit of progress because I am now in my last minute, so I am afraid. I would like to make another few points. I have been generous in the interventions that I have taken. Excuse me, minister. I know that this was a very undersubscribed debate. I think that at the beginning you said that there was plenty of time for this debate, so I am sure that you would be very generous to the minister if she wanted to take further interventions. That is not a point of order, Mr Finlay, as you well know. As you also know, it is up to speakers to decide whether or not they are willing to take interventions. I would like to make some progress because I am trying to get through quite a few important points that were raised and alluded to in this debate. I have been asked to respond to the debate as a whole, and I am trying to make some progress in that regard. Mention was made of the issue in general of undercover policing. I think that it is important that I stress, as the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, that undercover policing is a legitimate policing tactic, and the deployment of undercover officers is an operational decision for the chief constable, whose operational independence in relation to investigations and police tactics must be protected. At the same time, the Government recognises that undercover policing can intrude on privacy and must always be subject to the most robust procedures and rigorous oversight. Significant measures have therefore been put in place to strengthen the control of undercover officer deployment by Police Scotland. I would like to continue with that point, because I think that it is important that we put on the record what actions we have taken in that regard. The Scottish Government has brought forward legislation that raised the rank at which authorisation may be made, such that all authorisations are to be notified to the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, and the Scottish Government required all deployments to be approved by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners once they reach the 12-month stage. I think that those are important safeguards, and I think that it is important in the context of points that have been made in this debate to make mention of the safeguards that we have introduced. I will take one last intervention from Claire Baker. I thank the minister very much. Does the minister recognise that, while the Scottish Government has made efforts to improve undercover policing and build public confidence under undercover policing, unless we get an inquiry in Scotland that will undermine those efforts? To repeat again, while I agree that a single inquiry is the best way forward, if that is not achieved, if the Home Secretary denies Scotland being involved in the inquiry, will the Scottish Government commit to doing an inquiry within Scotland? I thank the member for intervention. As I have already said, we are absolutely focused at this point in having the inquiry extended to activities of the Met in Scotland, if that is where the evidence leads, because we do believe—and it has been mentioned in this debate—that that is the way that you best serve the public interest in terms of those who may have been affected in Scotland. That is what we are absolutely focused on securing and achieving in terms of our discussions with the UK Home Secretary at this time. There were other points that I wish to make in terms of the Police Scotland's code of ethics and the fact that every constable now makes a solemn declaration when appointed that they will uphold fundamental human rights. Undercover officers are required to comply with and uphold the principles and standards of professional behaviour set out in Police Scotland's code of ethics. That is another extremely important point to note in terms of the duties and responsibilities of our police force in Scotland, who do such a great job in protecting us day in and day out. To conclude, the Scottish Government is leading and supporting moves, as I have said, to allow the Pitchford inquiry to consider actions of relevant police units in Scotland. We will continue to pursue that matter in a determined manner with the UK Home Office. As I said, I encourage other members to use their good offices in whatever routes that might take them to seek that result, because that is the result that would best serve the public interest in terms of those who may have been affected by these actions in Scotland. Thank you, everyone. I now suspend this meeting until 11.40 for general questions.