 To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of Police Scotland officers routinely carrying out duties while carrying firearms. The decision where and when to deploy resources has always been on operational matter for the chief constable whose power to make decisions about the necessary and proportionate use of firearms. That position has not changed with the introduction of a single force. The vast majority of Scotland's police remain unarmed, but Police Scotland's dedicated firearms officers are available to protect the public 24 hours a day. The account for roughly 1.6 per cent, or as Assistant Chief Constable Bernie Higgins, is specified 275, which includes supervisory officers, are dedicated firearms officers. Those 275 officers are deployed on a shift pattern basis and consequently only a small number will actually be deployed across our communities at any one time. Those specialist officers are able to deal quickly with urgent and unexpected threats where delays could cost lives. While operational policing is a matter for the chief constable, there is a scrutiny role for the Scottish Police Authority in reporting to Parliament on an annual basis and keeping the policing of Scotland under review. Finally, post-Police Scotland, there is a role for the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner, who now, as it says, has a duty if a firearm is used as in taken out of the holder, the chief constable must refer the matter to the perk and the perk will make an assessment and decide if a full investigation is required. I think that we have all read the letter, but unlike the justice secretary, I am not reassured by the letter from ACC Higgins. Just as with stop and search, we should be worried here in Parliament that justice secretary hands the chief constable carte blanche. Prior to the single force, trained officers only carried firearms while responding to a clear threat to public safety and with the approval of a senior officer, and that was rightly granted on a case-by-case basis following an assessment of the actual risk. Now, hundreds of officers have been given blanket permission by the chief constable to carry guns while undertaking everyday duty, and crucially they no longer need specific approval of a senior officer to fire those guns. The risk did not change on the first of the week of 2013, but only the chief constable is the cabinet secretary comfortable with the fact that the specific approval of a senior officer to carry and deploy arms once a vital safeguard has been removed. The situation that Ms McInnes finds so condemnatory that exists at the present moment was the same system that operated not simply in Tayside and Strathclyde, but also operated as at 1 March 2013, prior to the inception of Police Scotland in northern Constabulary. The chief constable has since made the practice across all of Scotland, after all a practice that was accepted by more than half of Scotland when we had the eight legacy forces. I do believe that it is necessary in the society in which we live to have officers routinely available to deal with what can be human tragedies that we have seen in other jurisdictions and sadly have also been affected by here. I think that 275 officers operating on a shift basis, where it is a small fraction of that, given that Scotland is one-third of the land mass of the United Kingdom, is probably a proportionate response. Equally, I am reassured that both the SPA and indeed the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner have a role. Ms McInnes's must be brief. This is a substantial change of direction. This Parliament, not the Justice Committee, not local authorities, scrutiny bodies, nor indeed can I find any evidence that the Scottish Police Authority was notified of that. However, media reports today suggest that the cabinet secretary knew from the start and decided to keep it quiet so much for democracy. Can the cabinet secretary confirm on what date he became aware of this change in policy and does he agree with me that Parliament should have been informed? Cabinet secretary. I have been aware of the routine deployment of fire armed officers ever since I was the shadow justice secretary and indeed I saw comments when Graham Pearson was indeed the director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency before it morphed into the SCDA. I have to say that the routine use of fire arms officers throughout Scotland is something that has been with us, not simply since the establishment of this Parliament but, indeed, I think, prior to that although I am not able to comment on it. I was aware that, as we ran into the establishment of Police Scotland, three forces already operated the procedure that is now the standard procedure in Scotland. Those forces are number over half of the establishment in Scotland. They were, and I will repeat for, Ms McInnes' benefit, Strathglide, Tayside and, indeed, Northern. As I say, I was aware that, as at 1 April, the chief constable was going to use the benefits to ensure that we had a similar regime operating across all of Scotland. I have a number of members who wish to ask a supplementary of the cabinet secretary. Can I say the questions need to be brief and to need the answers? I am a question for Graham Pearson. I am surprised at the casual nature of the cabinet secretary in this regard. The change is not about the number of officers. It is the ability for officers to patrol routinely on our streets with side-arms without the need for authorisation on each individual occasion. That change is quite significant. We need a question, Mr Pearson. Could the cabinet secretary give us an indication that he will treat this change seriously and have it reviewed? I have no intention of having it reviewed. I am perfectly satisfied in the role of the Scottish Police Authority, the parliamentary sub-committee here. I note though that it was Mr Pearson when he was director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency that wished to change the operating procedure so that he and his officers would have those powers. David Thomson. Can the cabinet secretary tell us how many armed response officers are on duty at any one time in the Highlands and who is directly responsible for them? Does he agree with me that there is nothing in principle to prevent different policies on carrying of arms in different parts of Scotland? Those are matters for the chief constable and, indeed, to be discussed at local level. As I indicated in response to Alison McInnes, the procedure operating by Police Scotland was, in fact, invoked by Northern Constabulary prior to the establishment of the Police Service of Scotland. Issues concerning that may be appropriately raised with those who were there at that time. I cannot give the precise number. What I can say is that there are 275 authorised officers. They operate on shifts and it is more than simply a day and night shift, so the number is significantly less than that. Clearly, they are required to operate not simply in Northern Scotland but throughout all of Scotland. The number operating on a daily basis, Mr Finney may choose to raise either with the divisional commander or the chief constable, but I do believe that it will be a number that will be sufficient to deal with any threat, because after all, the threat is as likely to occur in a rural area as it is in an urban environment. The cabinet secretary confirmed whether the Scottish Police Authority was briefed about the new Scotland-wide firearms policy under the single police force one year ago or as soon as the policy was decided. The Scottish Police Authority has given a comment on that. It has made it quite clear that the decision is within the responsibilities of the chief constable of Scotland, as it relates to the deployment of officers under his direction and control. We are aware of the public comment and issue and have received clarification from Police Scotland. They appear to be satisfied with this, and I would suggest that, if Ms Mitchell has any concerns about that, she should take it up with Vic Emery. Clearly, as things currently stand, Mr Emery is satisfied with the action being taken by the chief constable, as I believe are the vast majority of the people of Scotland. The argument about the deployment of resources being an operational matter is exactly what we heard from Kenny MacAskill when Stephen House wanted all his officers' arms with tasers. Why can the cabinet secretary not see that the move to more routine armed policing is not merely an operational matter, it is a change in the nature of our policing in Scotland, and it deserves to be held to political scrutiny? We do not have routine armed policing. What we have is the same situation that arose prior to Police Scotland, and that probably was the situation prior to the establishment of this Parliament. In this situation, the chief constable of Police Scotland correctly agrees that there is the risk to communities and that we have to have firearms officers able to be deployed. They are there. They are less than 1.6 per cent of the constabulary of Scotland. On a daily basis, the number is a small fraction of that, and I believe that that provides the balance to protect the people of Scotland from tragedies great and small, with ensuring that the public is not routinely threatened and that we have no routine armed police force in Scotland. Does any community impact assessment undertaken in the Highlands and Islands before the decision to deploy armed response vehicle officers overtly carrying firearms to routine non-firearms related incidents in the Highlands and Islands? I cannot answer that, Presiding Officer. It would be a question that Mr Finnie would require to ask the former chief constable, Mr Graham, now retired, and indeed the former board of the Northern Constabulary. It may be that he would wish to speak to some former members of the board. He may be acquainted with some. 2. John Mason To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent Sunday Times rich list figures showing a 19 per cent increase in the wealth of the 100 richest people in Scotland, what action it can take to narrow the gap between the rich and poor people. The Scottish Government is a wealthy country. By population, we are the 14th wealthiest country in the OECD, wealthier than France, Germany, France, Japan and the United Kingdom. However, too many people in Scotland are not able to benefit from that wealth. Only this month the Scottish Government published detailed analysis of UK Government data on wealth and assets in Scotland, which shows that 30 per cent of all households in Scotland have almost no wealth. It means that they do not own poverty, have a private pension or savings or own items such as cars and household goods. The Scottish Government takes all action that it can, within its powers, to ensure that we support individuals on low incomes. Measures that we have taken in relation to the living wage and measures that we have taken in relation to welfare mitigation have been designed to tackle some of the issues of poverty that have affected our citizens. 2. John Mason If I understand that answer correctly, the Scottish Government has no real powers to tackle the gap between the rich and the poor. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could inform the chamber what guarantees UK ministers have given him that significant powers to tackle this gap would be devolved in the event of a no-vote in September. John Mason summarises the position of the limitations of the powers of the Scottish Government. My answer is designed to say that we will do everything that we can within our limited responsibilities. However, the data that I put on the record in which the Government has published demonstrates quite clearly that there are significant limitations on what the Scottish Government can do in tackling a major problem that affects our society. With the acquisition of a broader range of responsibilities, we would be in a position to take a wider range of actions to tackle the inequality gap that exists between the rich and the poor within our society. In relation to the points of any implications of a no-vote, John Mason and I can read the comments that are made by a variety of UK politicians. However, the record demonstrates that UK ministers have been unwilling to give effective powers to tackle the inequalities that exist within our society, and that is why we have to vote yes in the referendum in September. That is amazing. I thank the cabinet secretary for that further answer. Can he inform the chamber of any of the actions that an independent Scotland could take to tackle the issue of inequality? Clearly, there are choices to be made. The Government has made clear in the white paper that we would exercise a choice that we would not support the continuation of the investment in weapons of mass destruction, and we would change the defence expenditure priorities to invest in projects and measures that would boost the economic opportunities for people on lower incomes in Scottish society and to improve the participation rate within the economy. As a consequence of that, as we all know, people are active in the labour market and are able to command good jobs within the labour market and are able to address the poverty with which they wrestle. In addition, the Scottish Government would be determined to use the integrated range of powers within the benefits system and the employment system to create the opportunities that can encourage more and more people to participate in the labour market and for us to be able to secure the type of higher quality employment that will enable people to work their way out of poverty. One thing that the cabinet secretary could have done would have been to have supported living wage guarantees in the procurement bill a couple of weeks ago, even if that meant pushing the boundaries of European law. He was willing to do that on minimum pricing for alcohol. Why would he not do it to reduce the gap between rich and poor? The first thing to say about the living wage, of course, is that this was the first administration ever to apply the living wage across public sector employment, for which we have responsibility. We have done that consistently since the Government introduced that measure. We went through the arguments with the Labour Party last week on the issues in connection with the procurement bill. We set out, with clearly evidenced information from the European Commission, exactly why we could not legislate for the provision that Ian Gray has talked about. However, what the Scottish Government did was set out a whole range of different provisions in the procurement legislation that were designed to motivate and to encourage the greatest possible degree of private sector participation in following the lead that the Government has given in the delivery of the living wage to people within a whole range of employment sectors within Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary support action on wage ratios? Yes, I do support action on wage ratios. The point that was made by Lord Hutton in his review that he undertook for the United Kingdom Government indicated the growing disparity between lower-income individuals and higher-income individuals, and the Scottish Government agrees with the analysis that Lord Hutton set out in that respect. Thank you. That ends trouble questions. The next item of business is a debate to motion number 10079, in the name of John Swinney and the revenue squad on the tax power bills.