Police Scotland

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 18 January 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

1. Last week, the justice secretary tried to close down questions over his role regarding Police Scotland and the position of the chief constable, and he failed. Since then, we have had lawyers and senior police officers exchanging further blows, we have had more evidence of details being kept from this Parliament and, most worryingly, we have had an admission that no record exists of the meeting at which Michael Matheson intervened over the chief constable’s return to work. Does the First Minister really believe that this fiasco has shown a functioning system that is either transparent or accountable?

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

First, I say to Ruth Davidson that the justice secretary did not try to “close down” the issue. What the justice secretary did was come to the chamber, make a statement and answer questions in a robust and comprehensive way. That is the accountability that the Parliament and, indeed, the wider country should expect from the Government and from individual ministers.

What Michael Matheson set out, which I will set out again today, is this: there is a role for the Scottish Government—indeed, a role for the justice secretary—in ensuring that the Scottish Police Authority carries out its functions properly. Of course, the decisions about the employment of the chief constable are for the Scottish Police Authority. That division of responsibility is very clear and well understood.

Michael Matheson was right, when faced with the news that the Scottish Police Authority was inviting the chief constable back to work the very next day after that meeting, to ask questions such as whether the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner had been consulted, given the on-going investigation into allegations about the chief constable, whether the senior command in Police Scotland had been consulted and whether steps had been taken to ensure the welfare of any police officer who had raised concerns. He was not able to be satisfied on those matters, which is why the then chair of the Scottish Police Authority looked at the matter again.

I am not sure what Ruth Davidson would have said if, on the day following that meeting, the chief constable had turned up at work again. No doubt, that would have created a great deal of controversy. If, when MSPs had rightly started asking questions—as they undoubtedly would have done—it had transpired that the justice secretary had asked none of those questions, we would have had Opposition leaders justifiably coming to the chamber asking why he had not.

The justice secretary has acted entirely appropriately. I would have thought that all members across the chamber would have welcomed that fact.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The First Minister repeats the justice secretary’s comments from last week, but the matter goes a lot further. It is about whether the justice secretary acted unlawfully in directing the Scottish Police Authority to prevent the chief constable from coming back to work against its own recommendations. The truth is that we do not know. In fact, we cannot know because, last Thursday, Michael Matheson said that he would be “happy” for minutes of his meeting with the SPA to be released only for the SNP Government to then claim that—incredibly—no minutes had been taken.

The justice secretary took a massive decision to intervene to prevent the head of Scotland’s police force from returning to work and there is no written record of that. I think that that is shocking—why does the First Minister not think so?

The First Minister:

There are a number of relevant points to be made. The first point—which I made last week in response to a Tory back bencher—is that, week after week, in the chamber and in the media, we hear Opposition MSPs, in effect, accusing the Scottish Government of not intervening enough in the operation of Police Scotland. Now, we have Opposition leaders coming here to complain that the justice secretary asks legitimate questions.

The justice secretary did not instruct the chair of the Scottish Police Authority. What the justice secretary did was ask questions. I say again that, had the justice secretary not asked those questions and had the chief constable returned to work, I am absolutely sure that Ruth Davidson would have been among the first to get to her feet and demand to know why the justice secretary had not asked those questions.

We know what the justice secretary asked, because he came to Parliament last week and answered questions on that very matter.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

We have got to a point at which the cabinet secretary intervened to prevent the chief constable from coming back to work, there is no official record of the meeting and the Parliament was not informed about it until six weeks later, yet the First Minister stands there and says that it is fine by her. To cap it all, the former justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has said that it was just a chat, that there was no need to take minutes, that the public do not need to know about anything and that we should just trust the Scottish National Party. Well, we cannot.

Last year, three other senior police officers were suspended and, in those cases, the justice secretary could not have been clearer. He insisted, repeatedly, that he could not intervene and that

“we must respect the process.”—[

Official Report

, 29 November 2017; c 19.]

The problem is that he said that after he had already secretly intervened in the case of the chief constable.

Can the First Minister explain why the justice secretary told Parliament that the law prevented his intervening in disciplinary matters when, just weeks before, he had privately done just that?

The First Minister:

The justice secretary did not intervene in a disciplinary matter; he asked legitimate questions of the SPA to determine whether it had carried out its functions appropriately. Let me be clear not just that it is fine by me that my justice secretary asks legitimate questions but that I expect that of my justice secretary. I expect my justice secretary to do the job that he was appointed to do.

I have no doubt that, if, on the day after that meeting, the chief constable had turned up at work and it had turned out that the PIRC and the senior command had not been consulted and that no steps had been taken to protect the welfare of police officers, the first questions that Ruth Davidson and other Opposition MSPs would have asked are: “What did the justice secretary do? What questions did the justice secretary ask?” Had it turned out that the justice secretary had simply folded his arms and not bothered to ask any questions about whether the SPA had carried out its functions appropriately, Ruth Davidson would probably now be asking me whether I still had confidence in my justice secretary.

The hypocrisy of the Tories on the matter is breathtaking. The justice secretary did his job properly on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The public has a right to see the decisions that the Government takes—they must not be taken behind closed doors and in secret. It seems that the rules governing our police service are whatever the SNP decides it wants them to be. We have ministers intervening in private while telling Parliament that they cannot, and we have promises to be transparent while meetings are taking place without any record being made of what is going on. It is the SNP’s secret Scotland and it stinks.

We have to act. It is clear that the legal framework does not ensure proper accountability. We say that it is time to amend the law so that this Parliament, not the Government, has more power over our national police force. The First Minister knows that she will find support for such changes from across the chamber. It is her chance to show that she is listening for once. Is she listening?

The First Minister:

The public know what happened, because the justice secretary came to Parliament last week and answered questions. There is a distinction between the operational independence of the police and disciplinary and other matters of the Scottish Police Authority. The justice secretary did not intervene in matters in which he should not have intervened. It is the justice secretary’s job to ensure that the Scottish Police Authority, as a public body, is carrying out its duties appropriately, and that is exactly what the justice secretary did.

I am not sure what Ruth Davidson is arguing for. I am not sure whether she is arguing that the chief constable should have been allowed to come back to work without any of the appropriate questions having been asked. The justice secretary is accountable to Parliament and has made a statement in Parliament. The relevant committee is also looking into the matter and will, no doubt, ask further questions. The justice secretary acted appropriately and will continue to do so.

I cannot help but think that what we are getting here from Ruth Davidson—this week of all weeks—is a deflection. This is the week in which we have seen her party fail abysmally to stand up for Scotland on important matters related to Brexit and in which we have found out that the Scottish Tories do not have a backbone between them—they are nothing more than lobby fodder.