 I wish to make a short statement before we move to topical questions. Members will have received a letter this morning from the cleric chief executive. The letter highlights a technical problem with the software used to make the random draw for general and portfolio questions which was identified last week. This is a card from a software upgrade implemented in March this year. It means that members with surnames in the lower half of the alphabet may not have been picked up for inclusion in some of the draws during the intervening period. The problem has occurred in up to 12 of the 27 weeks of business since the software was upgraded. As soon as the problem was identified, steps are taken to rectify the situation. A manual work-around was used for the draw this week, and new software is currently being developed and tested, which will be rolled out for next week's draw or as soon as possible afterwards. The new system will be subject to rigorous testing, and it will also be possible to confirm which members' names are included in future draws. The situation is clearly unacceptable, so apologies are made to those members who have been disadvantaged. The system will also be assured that all steps have been taken to avoid the problem occurring in the future. I recognise that members will be disappointed by those events and I deeply regret it. It is important to rebuild members' confidence, so in addition I will be asking business managers if they wish to send a representative to see for themselves the draw for next week's questions. We now move to topical questions, which are unaffected by the random picking. Question 1, Jenny Marra. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report by the independent review of primary care out-of-hours services. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison, the Scottish Government welcomes the report of the national review of out-of-hours services published on 30 November. I want to thank Professor Ritchie for all his hard work in preparing such a wide-ranging and comprehensive report. Given the complex issues involved, we have asked all key delivery partners, including health and social care partnerships, to set out how they propose to deliver the recommendations locally. We will then use those local plans to inform a detailed national implementation plan that we will publish in the spring of 2016. To ensure that we see action immediately, I announced £1 million to begin testing the new urgent care hub model that is recommended in the report. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. One of the recommendations involves effective workforce planning and calls for a national primary care workforce plan, something that I and many of my colleagues on the benches have suggested before. Does the cabinet secretary now agree with Sir Louis Ritchie that workforce planning should be taken forward urgently and what is her timescale for this? Workforce planning is fundamental. It always has been. Of course, we accept all the recommendations in the report. Going forward, what I have set out in my initial answer is that the detailed national implementation plan will bring together all of the elements of the report in terms of how those will then be implemented by the Scottish Government, by boards and partners. I said that I would bring that forward in the spring of next year. Meantime, what is important is that we get on with the elements of the report. For example, the testing of the new urgent care hub model is very important and we want to get on with identifying test sites for that. We are going to be doing that immediately. We welcome the funding that has been put in place, £1 million, for the pilot hub testing model. The cabinet secretary will also know that the out-of-hours service across the country is struggling with reports of up to two GPs covering whole regions and real problems in Lanarkshire. The cabinet secretary says that she is going to bring forward to how her Government will implement recommendations in the spring, but what is she going to do now about the pressure on our out-of-hours service in Scotland? I would not have commissioned the out-of-hours report from Sir Lewis Ritchie had I thought there weren't challenges in the out-of-hours services. That is why I commissioned him to do this report. The report is excellent. It sets us on the right path to transform our out-of-hours services. Of course, there are short, medium and longer-term aspects of the report that Sir Lewis lays out, but we will get on with the job of transforming the out-of-hours services. Meantime, of course, out-of-hours services form an integral part of the winter plans, and there are £10.7 million for those winter plans to make sure that there is resilience in all our out-of-hours services. That includes making sure that the out-of-hours services are robust over the winter. Of course, then, the transformation will begin and the report on setting out how that will happen will be brought forward in the spring, as I said earlier. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the different terms and conditions being offered by different health boards to GPs providing out-of-hours services. She will know that, although some areas are able to provide GPs for their Edoch services, other health boards, such as Ayrshire and Arran, are moving towards providing Edoch services through the welcome services of advanced nurse practitioners. How does the cabinet secretary view this change in provision and what, if anything, is she doing about it? Of course, one of the proposals within the report is for a national GP performance list for Scotland. The member has highlighted an issue that boards are often competing with each other for the same GP. That is why that recommendation, along with many others, is so important in bringing together the out-of-hours services in a more coherent way that stops the position or avoids the position of boards competing with one another. As we work through the recommendations, we will expect boards to look at their own local plans, both in the short term in terms of reflecting the recommendations on their existing plans and then getting on with the job of implementing those recommendations. That will make a big difference out of our services across Scotland, including in the members' locality. The review points out that people in remote and rural locations are more likely to report negatively about out-of-hours care, plus concern among people living in these areas reassent of distance from accessing out-of-hours care. With more than 100,000 patients being treated out with their health board in 2014, what assurances can the cabinet secretary give to those people living in remote and rural areas that they will have the care they need, when they need it and where they need it? First of all, Jim Hume talks about people being treated out with the board area, but what he is referring to are many people who are treated at centres such as the Golden Jubilee Centre, which is a national resource. I am sure that Jim Hume would not think that that was a bad thing for patients across Scotland going to that centre for excellent treatment. On the remote and rural dimension of the report, Sir Lewis spends a good deal of the report looking at the remote and rural challenges. As we move forward with the recommendations, particularly how the new urgent care hub model will work, I am keen to test that both in an urban and in a rural and remote context. In remote and rural areas, without a doubt, there is a reliance on the local assets of the community. First responders have a very important role there, as does the ambulance service, as well as the primary care out-of-hours services. I am keen that we test that new model in a remote and rural context for its application more widely. I agree that this is a worthy report, and I agree with you that we need to make progress on it. The cabinet secretary has mentioned the GP contract in 2017, and again today, the implementation plan in 2016. I think that one of the highlights of the report is that deprived communities are losing out now and could benefit now. I am wondering if implementation of beneficial elements of the report could be rolled out prior to these days in deprived neighbourhoods and communities such as Inverclyde. Cabinet secretary. Duncan MacNeill will be aware that the publication of the report coincided with the publication of some research that was commissioned by the Scottish Government, which highlighted some of the issues that Duncan MacNeill is referring to. He will be aware that, within the existing contract, there is an element of funding for deprivation. The 100 depend practices receive together around £5.4 million, but, as he knows, as I have said before, we need to go further than that. The new contract offers the opportunity to do that. We will have a transition year in 2016 with the new contract, with large elements of the coff being dismantled to remove bureaucracy. If there is anything that we can move on earlier with that or, indeed, early aspects of the recommendations from Sir Lewis, I will certainly look at that. Perhaps some of the modelling and the testing we can have a focus on testing within some of the more deprived communities, how that model can work to best effect. Given the report and the research, does the cabinet secretary think that it would be appropriate for NHS Lanarkshire to go ahead with plans just to provide a centre in the south and not to have a centre at all in the north Lanarkshire area? As I have said before, there is no change to this. What we would expect Lanarkshire to do is to look at the report and apply the report to its services. If the board moves to any permanent change in its out-of-hours provision, because it is an interim service that it has at the moment, then that issue would come to the Scottish Government. However, I would expect Lanarkshire and all the other boards to make sure that their services are in line with the recommendations of the report, as I have said in this place before. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it will take in response to the recent report on Police Scotland by the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office. On learning of the breaches in the summer, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland to seek reassurance that it would co-operate fully with the IOCO investigation and that it would take any necessary actions that might result. That reassurance was given and Police Scotland has been working on a robust action plan since July to ensure that there has been no repeat of these incidents and that it cannot happen again in the future. However, it is clear that Police Scotland's actions in accessing communication data have fallen short of the standard that is expected. I welcomed the announcement last week by the Scottish Police Authority that it would ask HMICS to review the robustness of the procedures around Police Scotland's counter-corruption practices. I can reassure the chamber that that will be an independent thorough and in-depth review. In order to provide assurance to the public and this Parliament, it will focus on operational effectiveness and efficiency, the independence of the internal investigation function, governance and accountability and training and guidance for officers and staff. The review will be submitted to the Scottish Police Authority and the Parliament in the spring. I expect to see any HMICS recommendations for improvements implemented in full. Any breach of acquisition and disclosure of communication data code of practice is unacceptable. A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy and we are committed to protecting the privacy of all law-abiding members of the public, including journalists. In his statement on spying in September in this chamber, the cabinet secretary said in his own words that he had no idea who the police in Scotland are spying on. That is unlike the First Minister. She knew about claims that police had recklessly used illegal surveillance on repeated occasions almost five months ago. It appears that only the public and the Scottish Parliament were kept in the dark. Was the justice minister kept in the dark as well? If he wasn't, how does he explain his previous answer to this Parliament? Will he now take responsibility—a personal responsibility—to ensure that the numerous failures will not occur in the future in his watch? As the member has got a bit confused on these matters, the response that I gave at that time to Neil Findlay related to covert surveillance matters, which are entirely different from this particular issue, relate to historical matters as well, which the member will be aware of. As the member has been a little confused in these issues, but in relation to this specific point about the matter, when this issue became aware, when we became aware of this in July of this year, we asked Police Scotland for assurances that they were complying with the investigation that was undertaken by IOCOL. What is important is that we recognise that IOCOL is the responsible, independent, judicially led body that is responsible for the oversight of this area of policing, not just in Police Scotland but all police forces across the UK and all public bodies who are able to exercise those powers. What the investigation has demonstrated by IOCOL is that that oversight mechanism has identified failings in Police Scotland in making sure that it has been through the proper process for undertaking this type of acquisition of communication data. What it also recognises is that Police Scotland has put in place a robust process to make sure that this type of thing cannot happen again. That has been a thorough process that it has gone through. I recognise that what Police Scotland has done in breaching the code has been unacceptable, but what we have now from IOCOL is assurance that it has a procedure in place that can prevent this from happening again in the future. It will clearly continue to keep the under review as the review, the way in which the procedures are used by Police Scotland and every other police force in the UK. I accept that IOCOL has done their job and done it thoroughly. For years in this Parliament, I have asked the cabinet secretary to ensure that proper governance, accountability and oversight was in place for the new national police force. That has been rebutted by this Government with some energy. Will he now accept that there is not sufficient governance in place and make sure that it occurs? The member seems to be getting himself even more confused than this issue because the governance and oversight of this area of reserve legislation is IOCOL. It was actually put in place by a Labour Government in order to make sure that public bodies who had these powers were being held to account. That is exactly what it is there for. I do not know whether the member is suggesting that we should get rid of IOCOL if that is the case. That would be a matter for the UK Government to get rid of IOCOL altogether and it should be replaced by something else. Of course, there is presently the proposal for a new investigative powers framework, which could include the emerging of the different inspection regimes and oversight regimes that we have in the UK as well. However, the oversight mechanism for that is not something that is peculiar to Police Scotland, which the member would like to give the impression that it is. The oversight mechanism for that is one that applies to all police forces in Scotland and is a robust mechanism that has identified failings and has put measures in place. Given the member's policing experience, he would not be as confused in that issue as he clearly is. I have five members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary. I recognise that time is moving on, but I fully intend to take all of them. However, I would be extremely grateful if you would keep your questions as short as possible. Is it perhaps worth noting that the breach of the code of practice concerned is a code that does not relate to the interception of communications, nor to the acquisition or disclosure of the contents of communications? It is a more technical breach, but it is notwithstanding that and the comments that the cabinet secretary has made. How can the public be reassured that the HMICS review will be both vigorous and independent? As the member correctly pointed out, that is to do with communication data rather than the interception of communications, which has ministerial oversight and requires ministerial authorisation. The Scottish Police Authority has asked HMICS to undertake a review of the practice that is being used by Police Scotland's counter-corruption unit. As I have mentioned, it will be an independent and thorough in-depth review that will look at operational effectiveness and efficiency, the independence of the internal investigation function, governance and accountability and training guidance, which is provided to staff as well, and that will be laid in parmolch, while members will be able to consider and I would fully expect any recommendations to be fully implemented by Police Scotland. Will the Rainier, followed by Margaret Mitchell? What we are still missing from this case is a proper explanation as to who did this and why they did it also. We did a proper explanation to get the transparency that I think members of the public are seeking. Rather than reopening the investigation, they tried to find the source of the leak. I think that we need a proper explanation as to why that was allowed to happen. When does he think that it will come? Part of the process is that, given that the breaches have been identified and that IOCOL has now written to those individuals who have been affected by it to make them informed that they can now take the matter to an investigatory powers tribunal, they will be responsible for looking at the extent of what that breach implied for that individual and whether there is any recourse that should be applied in those instances. The tribunal will now be able to look at the extent of that and to consider how that has impacted on the individuals who have been affected by it. However, the member is right. It is important that the public can have assurance and that we all have assurance on how those procedures have been implemented. IOCOL has accepted the action plan that has been taken by Police Scotland to prevent this from happening again in the future. It will continue to have oversight of that, and the investigative powers tribunal will now be responsible for deciding on the extent of the breach and how it applied to those individuals' circumstances and any compensation or other matters that should be applied as a result of that breach. While I accept that the interception of communication is reserved, does the cabinet secretary share my despondency that the SPA, despite being responsible for the oversight of Police Scotland's full stop, has yet again been caught in the backfoot and reduced admonishing Police Scotland after the fact and then asking HMICS to undertake an insurance review? It is important to understand the process that the investigative powers legislation puts in place, and the oversight function for the use of investigative powers is a matter for IOCOL in that type of issue. It is not a matter for some other third party bodies such as the Scottish Police Authority. It is extremely important that, when an organisation like IOCOL identifies a breach in those procedures, the SPA considers what measures should be taken in order to address any deficiencies. IOCOL has confirmed that robust measures have been put in place to address the failings in Police Scotland in this particular instance. What HMICS will now do at the request of the SPA is to look at the practices and wider issues in the counter-corruption unit. That is exactly the area that is the responsibility of the SPA. By undertaking the insurance review, it will look at the wider issues around it and will not take over the function that IOCOL has in oversight of those, which then reports to the Prime Minister on the issues for all forces across the UK. Public concern here is much wider than communications. The last time I asked the cabinet secretary whether undercover officers were spying on activists, he said in a quote, I have no idea. Given the revelations in the Sunday Herald over the last two weekends, will the cabinet secretary now instruct a full independent inquiry into the role of undercover police in Scotland, or are Scots the only people in the mainland UK who are going to be denied information and justice on what is an extremely important issue? That is a different matter altogether in relation to the matter. I know that the Labour Benches might be a bit confused on that particular issue. However, as I made clear, the issues of covert surveillance are not matters that Scottish Government ministers are involved in. Additionally, the issues that the member has raised relate to matters involving metropolitan police officers and the work that they were undertaking in direction through the metropolitan police officers. As I have said to the member, if he has clear evidence of officers within Police Scotland or any of the legacy forces that he believes were not fulfilling the procedures that were set out for the use of covert surveillance, then I am more than happy to consider those issues. As yet, I have still not received any concrete evidence from the member, serving out clearly where there have been breaches relating to specific officers in Police Scotland or in the legacy forces. John Finnie. The Scottish Police Authority is the disciplinary authority for chief officer ranks in Scotland. I welcome their inquiry. I do not doubt the impartiality of HMCIS. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary can tell us what status that would have in respect of discipline. Also, in relation to Police Scotland, the disciplinary authority for ranks below chief officer is the deputy chief constable. I wonder if he feels that there is any conflict of interest there, if indeed there is a misconduct inquiry under way, if indeed there is a criminal inquiry under way in relation to those matters. I think that the member raises a number of interesting points. That is part of the reason for the HMICS review of the way in which the counter-corruption unit has actually been operating some of their practices about accountability and also about the oversight of their mechanisms as well, which could pick up on some of the points that the member has also highlighted. Having said that, given that this matter will now also go to an investigatory power tribunal, it will consider the extent of the impact that it has had on an individual's concern for those who choose to take it to a tribunal and to those who, I would call any compensation that should be provided to those individuals. Once that process has been completed, I would expect the SPA and Police Scotland to consider where there are any further actions that would then be necessary. However, given that there is due process now in place and we know that one party who has been affected has already indicated that they would wish to take it to an IPT, we need to make sure that that process is being completed and fully investigated before any further decisions could then be taken on disciplinary matters. However, I think that the member has raised a number of important points that I have no doubt that the HMICS will consider in its investigation. Thank you. That ends topical questions. Point 4, Mr Findlay. Under the standing orders, I wonder if the minister would like to... Tell me of Mr Findlay's microphone, please. Under the standing orders, I wonder if the minister would like to correct a record in that, over a week ago, 10 members of the Parliament wrote to the minister, raising specific concerns about the activities of undercover police in Scotland. The minister, perhaps his civil servants have not advised them of that yet, but that has happened. Secondly, any undercover operations in Scotland have to be authorised by senior officers in the forced area in which they operate. I would have thought that the minister would have known that. As the member knows, that is not a point of order for me. What the minister says in Trial and Martyr for him, we are now moving to the next site of business, which is a point of order from John Mason. On 4 November, I wrote to you about the abuse of points of order by Mr Findlay, and you wrote back to me on 18 November. However, it seems to me that if one member continues to abuse the system like this, it just encourages all other members to do the same unless some action is taken against them. Can I say, Mr Mason, that is not a point of order? The next site of business is a debate on motion number 1503, in the name of Maureen Watt, on the health, tobacco, nicotine, et cetera, and Care Scotland Bill. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press the request speak button now.