 Rhaid i'n ciclei ond yn y bwysig sy'n gofyn nhw, fe oedd bwysigio gwahanol i'r wath ynghylch rhai ond ond y cwmdiwch,願wch, spainfawr, na'u gwirio hwyl i'r cyflym i'r gweithiau'r ysgolodd. Mae'r gweinideg rhai ei hofyn fom yn i'i ddod, ac mae'n gweinideg i'w chdi'r bwysig i'r bwysig y gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i'r bwysig honno i'r f—o'r ffordd, Swym High five notify members of members of the member of the public who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly please. Two years ago the Scottish Police Scotland was set up by emerging the previous eight forces. Rwy'n credu cymrydol ni'n gweld fel bod maesiaidiedig. Rwy'n credu bod ddechrau'r cyflethau besideiwyll. Mae rhywbeth am ddadw yn dechrau. Maesiaidiedig, roddod y ffalson Cymru, a byddwn i'r acef diwrnod yr athg Changing, rwy'n fawr yw, ar ddarlag gwybwyngau ygafod. O'r ddaliad i'r cyhoedd yn fawr, yng Nghymru yn ddegwyd y bydd nag i gafodd a'r syniad gan ddyn nhw'r ein bryd rydyn nhw. o'r argyll 여 iawn. One of the things that I think we need to put on record is that any criticisms are not criticisms of uniform staff or civilian staff who are working tirelessly to make sure that our streets and our communities are kept safe and secure. It is troubling when we see issue after issue being raised in the press and coming to this ond we have inconsistency and where we have stories changing almost by the hour, because if we cannot have a police force that we can rely on in terms of what they are saying, then it does undermine the political confidence but it also undermines the public confidence and even when it comes to the consultation that has been conducted by Police Scotland on what confidence the public has, there has been controversy over who has been asked about the confidence with reports that many people who have been stopped by the police such as motorists do not count towards the statistics that are not asked in terms of their experience. So what's behind all of this and there is a fault and there is a problem on three levels. There is a level political because this was created by the Scottish Government. They did not take into account advice and concerns and they steamroller, they used the majority to impose a structure and a method of operation that they thought was most appropriate. There is a problem with the creation of the so-called body set up to hold Police Scotland to account, the Toothless Tiger, the Scottish Police Authority, that is largely ineffective and that comes to the game almost inevitably after events take place rather than setting out its policies and its expectations in advance. Therefore what we have is a set up where the third party in Police Scotland is having to meet the best of what has been given to it and frankly is struggling to cope. We've got a problem straight away with the budget and we had the debacle of the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament in its scrutiny of the Audit Scotland report on the police budget where the concerns of members and indeed where the concerns of witnesses were taken out of the final report by the SNP majority and where myself at that time as the convener along with Tavish Scott and Mary Scanlon were forced to issue, in an unprecedented manner, a minority report trying to reflect some of the problems that were being imposed on Police Scotland because of the finances and the way that the money was being delivered to them and that is all too typical of this process. We have had constant bleaks from the SNP Government that Westminster should sort out their VAT problem. Now there is a debate to be had about VAT but at the same time we have Treasury ministers saying in 2011 the Scottish Government were explicitly advised of the potential consequence of changing from regional police forces to a single authority as part of a proposed revised funding model. At the time they took the decision they would have known they would be no longer eligible for VAT refunds as a result so this comes from the Scottish Government. We have had the debacle of stop and search where tens and hundreds of thousands of people are being stopped and searched in a level that we don't even see in the metropolitan police where the evidence and the assurances of Police Scotland do not seem to be worth the paper that they are written on, where the story changes, where this Parliament has promised that stop and search of under-twels would be stopped only to find out that it is still continuing. We then have the mess of data being lost because apparently someone pressed a button and lost the information, which actually beggars belief because I don't know of many data systems that would be so vulnerable to such a loss of sensitive data is that one person pushing one button could enable information to be lost. We have civilian staff working under pressure in March 2010. There were 7,862 staff. In December 2014 there were five, six, one, nine, a loss of two, two, four, three staff and more jobs looming. As we heard earlier on from Willie Rennie, staff under pressure, sickness and stress levels on the increase where we have police officers despite what the chief constable and senior staff say, police officers backfilling the jobs of civilian staff, jobs that they are not trained to do and, incidentally, jobs that they are not paid to do when they should be out on the streets keeping communities safe. We have the problem that Willie Rennie mentioned of control rooms. We have the skewed consultation. We have the loss of data. We have been told by the chief constable that there are no targets and yet we hear from former officers that the stop and search figures not only have been invented but that there are targets. Calum Steele, the chief executive of the Scottish Police Federation, said that we have police officers that are making numbers up. We know that. I have just met this week retired police officers from across the country who are telling us that they have targets and key performance indicators. We have problem after problem. We have duplicity at every turn from quarters that should not be involved in that. We have two creatures, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, created by the Scottish Government. We have debacles sponsored by the Scottish Government. It is really time now for the Scottish Government to take some responsibility for its decisions and to sort this mess out once and for all. Many thanks. We are extraordinarily tight for time today, so I am going to have to confine members to four-minute speeches. Roderick Campbell, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise to the member and to the chamber for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate of another commitment. When I first read the motion today, I thought that we might be focusing on the proposal to consider the merger of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde division of Police Scotland with that of our garland western bartender, which is currently going out to consultation, but it seems that the thrust of this member's debate is somewhat far-ranging. The motion refers to the second anniversary of Police Scotland. I think that we should all recognise that these are early days for a body that marks a radical change to policing in Scotland. With the best will in the world, to evaluate that change now would fail to do it justice. The first of April 2013 was the start of reform, not the end, but that does not mean that lessons cannot be learned at this stage. The loss of data was a clear embarrassment. For example, in relation to armed policing, I think that Police Scotland and the SPA were slow to respond to the need for public engagement about the deployment of firearms, especially in non-life threatening situations. Even then, we should not overestimate the number of officers involved. Indeed, 98 per cent of officers in Scotland are unarmed. The SPA scrutiny report in January this year was thorough. In compiling it, there were public evidence sessions, an academic report and surveys of opinion, together with 200 responses to a public call for evidence. Not just the SPA, but HMI CSs are taking a very active interest in this issue. That is not an issue that is being overlooked. On stop and search, as we know, the cabinet secretary is awaiting an update from Police Scotland by the end of the month. We know that the chief constable is minded to stop the practice of consensual searches but is consulting. Although, according to a newspaper opinion poll, the majority of people surveyed support consensual stop and search, the Scottish Police Federation has defended the use of stop and search, so there is a debate to be had. Of course, at the latest SPA board meeting to consider stop and search, the chief constable himself acknowledged that mistakes had been made. He apologised and said that lessons would be learned. That is simply not the mark of an unaccountable officer. He is well used to the need to be accountable. Indeed, I am reminded of the comment of Councillor Stephen Curran, a Labour Councillor from the Old Strathclyde Police Board, who told the Justice Committee on 20 March 2012, when we were considering the police reform bill at stage 1, that, quote, we are quite fortunate in that the chief constable was to put it bluntly used to more robust accountability in England in the Metropolitan Police. He is used to being questioned. Mr Curran was speaking, of course, of chief constable Stephen House. If there are any shrinking violets on the SPA, they should take heart. Speaking of shrinking violets, we have, of course, our own police sub-committee, chaired by Christine Graham, proving that this Parliament takes its role in holding Police Scotland to account very seriously indeed. It is right and proper that time is tight. It is right and proper that there is parliamentary scrutiny, but perhaps we ought also to consider the positives. A national force under the SPA that has achieved efficiency savings of £130 million in its first two years has maintained police numbers, recognising that the ultimate configuration of staff resources is a matter both for itself and the Scottish Police Authority. Being committed to no compulsory redundancies and I hope of the need to engage fully with representatives of police staff who we have to accept are at the sharp edge of the tight financial constraints that we operate in. A national force that has presided over a 40-year low-end crime figures, for which some credit should go to them, for their professionalism, and we should also appreciate the benefits that a national force can provide in accessing specialist services in any part of Scotland. Despite the inference in the motion, I believe that public confidence in the police force remains high. In my view, in our pursuit of accountability, we should take care not to undermine that confidence. Thank you very much. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Graham Pearce. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank Henry for bringing this important debate to the chamber and I apologise for having to leave after making this contribution. There is no doubt that, in the two years that Police Scotland has been in existence, it has not had its problems to seek with the same issues about lack of transparency and accountability and poor communication problems arising. In terms of the legislation, the case for the introduction of a single police force was predicated on the potential savings and the assertion that the pooling of resources would avoid duplication and be more efficient. Crucially, despite the Conservatives and others pressing for a full business case to be carried out, that was point blank, refused by the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Scottish Government. Consequently, decisions have been taken that I do not believe would have been approved or even been suggested had the Scottish Government been required to produce a full business case. It was the Government's failure, however, to give assurances about local accountability, which meant that the Scottish Conservatives could not support the legislation. Furthermore, in terms of oversight, it is far from satisfactory that under the legislation, the head of the SPA owes its position to the patronage of Scottish ministers, and there is clearly much more work to be done before the SPA effectively fulfills its role in scrutinising and holding the chief constable to account. Stuff and search is a case in point, where there is evidently at the very least a lack of communication between the chief constable, who has been adamant that no volume target setting has taken place, and Callum Steele, representing rank and file officers, who stated that the numbers-driven target approach to stop and search was ill-conceived and resulted in attention being directed towards meaningless numbers. Decisions to cut almost now 1,600 support staff have meant that, again, despite the chief constable's assurance to the contrary, backfilling is prevalent and serving officers are being removed from front-line duty to carry out administrative tasks previously undertaken by civilian support staff. The 2012 act sought to strengthen the connection between services and communities. Instead, there has been a centralisation of the service, with the closure of police counters replaced with an automated 101 number. It is, therefore, virtually impossible for the public in the areas in which those closures have hit to have a face-to-face discussion with a police officer at a time of their choosing. Furthermore, the closure of control rooms means that valuable local knowledge is lost, resulting in officers unfamiliar with the area and unable to locate the locus that they are required to attend. That was confirmed by the participants at the Justice Committee's recent round-table discussion on rural crime. It is for the reasons listed above that the Scottish Conservative some time ago now called for a review of the oversight of Police Scotland. Given our concerns about the lack of local accountability, it has proved justified. It is now time to rethink how best the service can be made more responsive and tailored to the needs of local communities. That will require flexibility and decision making in order to deliver the service that our local communities and the public have a right to expect to keep their streets safe. Thank you very much. I now call on Graham Pearson to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, can I record my absolute gratitude and praise for those police officers and support staff across Scotland who performed duty on behalf of the public, on behalf of my family and on behalf of me? I value the work that they do daily, largely unseen and largely unapplauded. Second, I remember today in the lead-up to the second anniversary of Police Scotland, those staff members who were let go over the last couple of years, many of whom were highly professional, highly committed and suffered a great deal of stress and loss as a result of the policies that have been pursued through the development of Police Scotland. Thirdly, before I go into the main part of my speech, I acknowledge that neither the cabinet secretary nor the minister were responsible for the current situation that we find ourselves with Police Scotland. Although I am a member of the Government Party, they played no significant part in the debates that we held at that time. As a result, I offer that they are in a supreme situation of being able to learn the lessons of the last couple of years and repair what is wrong, rather than trying to defend the indefensible. What I would offer is that, from the outset, there were concerns around the chamber that governance and accountability had been overlooked. In the debates at the Justice Committee, I specifically asked back in 2011 of the chief constable, Mr Smith, who was in charge of reform at that time, how will concerns that develop at local boards be represented at national board level, has there been any discussions about that link? The response from the chief constable, no, and our submission would be that there is a gap in the bill. At a previous meeting of the Justice Committee, I asked of Robert Black his view of the arrangements for proper governance. I would remind the chamber that Robert Black was much appreciated as someone who knew about accountability and knew about how to deliver governance in a real sense. He described the arrangements in the bill as revealing a democratic deficit, and we have carried the burden of that deficit ever since. We saw for some nine months some shadow boxing between a chief constable and a convener about the jobs' worth and about how their role and their position would be seen. As a result, that whole business of governance was overlooked. By October 2012, it was reported in the Holyrood magazine in a portfolio that Emery, and I presume that it is Mr Emery, has already gone on record to stress the need for good governance and strategic leadership. It seems to me that Mr Emery and his board believe that governance and leadership equals review and post scrutiny. That is not what an SPA should be about. I would also remind the minister that we call for a business case so that we can see how we would deliver on reform in the long term. It has yet to arrive. We were told that reform would need a real change in the way that police officers work. We are waiting for an IT system that would allow that to develop. In finishing, what we require for the current arrangements is a board that stands at its height, that exercises through governance, a whole environment that operates through candor, odd honesty and openness. I stress that the sub-committee of the Parliament does not work effectively, but it has neither the time nor the stature that it deserves. Regularly members complain that the time is short and that lunchtime is no time to do the important work of scrutiny in this Parliament. I am grateful to Hugh Henry for securing this debate. Members know that Scottish Liberal Democrats were the only party to consistently oppose the abolition of valued local police services in favour of the creation of a national force. We base that on reasonable principled concerns. The centralised force would be unaccountable. It could never be as responsive to the needs of our communities. The numbers did not stack up and savings claims were unrealistic. It would lead to a further disproportionate loss of civilian staff and backfilling by front-line officers. Members, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to see those concerns and more realised. Like Hugh Henry, let me put on record again my gratitude to the officers and civilian staff at the front line who keep our communities safe. The way that Scotland does policing has changed and not for the better. There has clearly been a shift towards a narrow enforcement model of policing that is preoccupied with targets. However, as we approach the force's second birthday, we are still being hindered, obstructed even, and scrutinising its policies, practices and performance. It has required real persistence to expose an illiberal system of stop-and-search, plagued by recording problems. People were rightly alarmed that the SPA seemed unaware for well over a year that armed police were undertaking routine duties. Parliament was not even informed. The number of police officers has announced every three months with tedious fanfare, but it is left to others to expose backfilling and to calculate 1,400 civilian staff have lost their jobs. Just this week, we learnt that more key statistics are to be published late, six months late. None of that was volunteered. It has consistently required our constituents, the media or opposition politicians to uncover the truth. It should not be difficult to find out what is really going on, either on our streets or behind closed doors at central police headquarters. People have a right to know if the way that they are being policed has changed. Public engagement and accountability are fundamental principles of policing by consent. In its infancy, the national force has repeatedly chosen not to be wholly upfront with either Parliament or the Scottish Police Authority, to which it is supposedly accountable. Senior officers seem to operate on a need-to-know basis, limited to their own ranks. That lack of transparency is allowed to happen, because, as the motion notes, the SPA has proven ineffective in lacking in clout. It is not conducting scrutiny in the way that it ought to. The chair told me during justice sub-committee on 21 August 2014, that we make recommendations and ask the chief constable questions. Normally, we see such things after the fact. However, it does not exactly inspire confidence, does it? The body that is supposed to lead the scrutiny of the national force's policies and performances is constantly playing catch-up. The SPA needs to be much more proactive, interrogate the competence and merits of policies before they are enacted, not months later, and do not be deflected by cries of operational independence. The Scottish Government must take responsibility. It used its majority to force through the fundamentally flawed legislation that has caused so much of this sorry mess. Yet, since the inception of Police Scotland, ministers have not scheduled a single debate in its own time to reflect upon and discuss the impact of policing reform. The most critical whole-scale reform for a generation, I think that is extraordinary. I think that it is a dereliction of duty and is disrespectful of this Parliament. Instead, it has been left to Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties to highlight issues using our members and opposition business debates. The Scottish Government cannot pass the buck. It cannot pass legislation and then wash its hands of the results. It is high time that ministers have tackled those problems head-on and told members here in Parliament how they are going to sort things out. Deputy Presiding Officer, it has become standard and welcome practice, though we are not obliged to do so, to congratulate the member on securing a member's debate. Regrettably further, by first time in 16 years here taking part in these debates, I cannot do so. I am reading the motion, listening to the debate and asking myself, is this a member's or an opposition debate? Technically, of course, it fulfills the criteria for to see of the guidance and motions. It must raise issues commemorating anniversaries or mark national weeks or special events to have cross-party support. There is a world of difference between the letter of the law and the spirit, and I think that this sails close to an abuse of parliamentary procedures. I find that this is additionally disappointing, given that Hugh Henry, like myself, aspired to be, Presiding Officer, and I would have thought that he would have demonstrated more respect for parliamentary processes. This is an opposition debate in all but name, but safe from meaningful amendment and indeed a vote. I am willing to take all the criticisms that Christine Graham makes if I have been proved to have stepped beyond the rules of this Parliament. Could you indicate to me whether this was a competent motion and whether it is an appropriate one for members' debate? It is a competent motion, Mr Henry, and once it was passed by the bureau, that is why we are debating it today. There is no objection to this at the bureau, so Ms Graham, please continue now. Cw, Deputy Presiding Officer, I acknowledge that. I think that we need to change our rules and have written to standards to ask them in the light of this debate, but, of course, that makes it safe from meaningful amendment or indeed a vote. Hugh Henry, as justice spokesman, is new to his job and, I think, is not up to speed. I think that we have in Parliament very rigorous scrutiny of Police Scotland and the SPA since it came into being, either through the full justice committee, which does not have an SNP majority, or the subcommittee, which also does not have an SNP majority and whose members were appointed by Parliament to represent the remits of justice, equal opportunities and local government. We have held 29 meetings since it was established in March 2013. The main topics have been armed police, stop and search, local policing, complaints investigations, the I6 programme, the new police custody arrangements and government's issues. We know that at the start there were issues between Police Scotland and the SPA, but, my goodness, we have done our damnness to hold them to account and they have moved. Anyone who thinks that the SPA or Police Scotland have had it easy has not been paying attention. Add to that to Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary that there is more scrutiny of police now than I can ever remember. I would rather have in Police Scotland 17,254 full-time equivalent police officers than eight chief constables, eight deputy chief constables and all the paraphernalia that comes with them, or, indeed, what we have in England and Wales, 41 police commissioners voted in an average 15 per cent of those entitled to vote, getting something like 80 to 100,000 a year with all the staff that comes with it. Of course it has not been perfect, but to allege that we have not been scrutinising in this Parliament over two years is, frankly, wrong. I return to this. I am happy to debate this, but this, Mr Henry, should be a member's debate in this Parliament. I think that to use a full debate, to use it as a member's debate, frankly, is not appropriate. As I said, I am writing to standards to see that we change the guidance so that this does not happen ever again. I would like to thank the member for bringing this debate here. It is not my intention to speak at great length about Renfrew, but I would understand that the people of Renfrew would welcome discussion. There is no harm ever come from discussion whether that is the people of Renfrew and the people of the Highlands and Islands that I am charged with representing are interested in this issue, and I am grateful to the member for bringing in the debate. The debate talks about reported controversies. One of those I played a part in is the UN Police. That was a matter that was legitimately raised by me because of public concerns, and the public concerns could have been addressed, of course, had there been consultation. Indeed, had there been a community impact assessment, that actually gets to the heart of this issue, because words like community engagement is what policing should be about, policing is something that is done for the people, not to the people. I genuinely hope that there is lessons learned. I think that we could have lengthed discussion about policing by consent and operational independence. I think that we could learn something. The motion talks about accountability. I do not recall any suggested alternative structure. I may stand corrected in that from the Labour Party. I, for one, welcomed the fact that there were council ward policing plans. I think that that is very useful. I like the fact that, in the local authorities, the four in the area, the four in the Highlands and Islands that were previously represented by one board, each have their own committee, but, as Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary said last week, they do need to assert themselves, and that is where this Parliament can play a role in encouraging that and empowering that. We have heard from a number of people about the Scottish Police Authority that it is the case that they have been absent on the big issues. They have just not been there. They have been playing catch-up, and they have not made a particularly good job of that. On the armed policing there was the report. It comes late. I understand that it was the subject of dynamic editing or something of that nature, we are being told. It would be good to understand the background to that. Again, we need a spirit of openness and transparency from Police Scotland and the Police Authority. They were very keen to quote the survey results. I understand that they have not made the survey results available to the press. Indeed, they have told the press that they do not have those results. The press have gone to the company that produced the information and they have been told that they have not disclosed the information to the press. I understand that that may breach the code of conduct for the company, so hopefully we will see that pan out in the right way and there will be the fullest information disclosed. I would pose the question who is accountable to whom. Budget pressures—the VAT issue is not a minor issue, and if any of the energy that had gone into the swift delivery of VAT-free status to the academy schools at the Conservative and Lib Dem party put in place—indeed, ski lifts—something that is important in my area about VAT-free ski lifts, I think that if there was a wall there would have been a way to address that. There is a reversal of the civilianisation programme, as it would have been called in the early 70s, and that is disappointing. I commend the work of unison in relation to that. I think that the principle of a job requiring police powers—meaning that a constable has to do it or not requiring police powers—is not just black and white. I think that there are issues around the margins that in particularly rural areas police officers involved in firearms inquiries and the delivery citations have some benefit. In the short time that I have left, I want to see I serve for 30 years in the police and, like Graham Pearson, I am very proud of the police service and my time there. Prior to the advent of Police Scotland, I saw to him as giving assurances that best practice in the constituent forces would be applied. That was not the case. I am not going to repeat all the difficulties around stop and search. There is a very clear framework in which police officers work. That is the common law and statute law. Unfortunately, the common theme in this is the direction and style of the chief constable, where creative mechanisms have been put in place. I hope that that will be addressed. I certainly want to lend my very clear support to the front-line officers and the police support staff and other officers who support them. I think that the role for this Parliament is to be a friend to the Scottish Police Service but to be a critical friend. I hope that there has been some constructive concititism. I have certainly heard that today. Once again, I thank the member for bringing in this debate. Many thanks. I now call Anzala Malik, after which I will move the closing speech to the minister. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. Please allow me to thank Hugh Henry for creating today's motion. As we approach the second anniversary of the establishment of Police Scotland, it is important that we look back to make note of the progress and of any mistakes that we've made over the past two years. It is absolutely clear that there is a great deal of work to be done in improving our police force's effectiveness and its public image. With powers like Stop to Search, it is critical that officers are provided with appropriate training of handling not only possible risks to themselves but also to people with mental health issues and disabilities and in fact people with language difficulties and have to provide our officers with all the possible training opportunities that we can get. Data collection must be improved and better provision so that we can assure the public of its safety and its best use and appropriate use. In terms of collecting data, one should always act on the figures reached, such as the fact that only 1%, and I just repeat that for focusing on equality issues, only 1% of the police force are from the ethnic minority communities make up out of 4% of the Scottish population. It is an utmost importance that Police Scotland can work to protect the civilians and gain their trust amongst all the communities that they serve equally. The job cuts in civilian employees and the consequences of officers being given additional responsibilities to compensate for the troubling effects of officers as well as the public staff. I think it's important that we make sure that our officers are not having to fulfil the back office jobs as they currently have to do so. It means that real officers in doing real jobs are in fact denied that opportunity to do so and are disadvantaged in the communities and getting the proper service that they are entitled to do so. This also falls to the Scottish Police authorities as well as the Scottish Governments. Compliancy on their parts cannot be permitted in today's day and age, so I look forward to the additional resources given to the police to help them to deal with these growing challenges. The fact that our services are facing difficulties on a day-in-day-out basis means that they need to be protected. They need to be protected and given the funds and the resources and the tools of the trade to carry out their duties effectively. I think that the fact that Christine said that they've been very good in making sure that all the challenges that are facing the police for are dealt with, including equalities in particular, I have to say to her that unfortunately that's not quite true. However, that said I'm sure that the new cabinet secretary in his position will try his best to try and reverse that trend. I know for a fact that many of the communities are looking forward to seeing better results, better communication and most importantly better resources for our police services and I mean that in the best of help in trying to achieve that. I think that one of the things that's missing and has been missing for the last two years is that public participation with the force which has been missing since the single police force that came into power. I welcome the opportunity to respond to Hugh Henry's debate and to provide balance to what I have to say in Mr Henry's contribution, but not his colleagues thankfully, was largely negative one-sided picture that has been presented. At the outset, I want to highlight that not only did Labour put forward support for a single service, which I accept, Hugh Henry acknowledged in his own contribution. He also voted for it in the Scottish Parliament, so let's not lose sight of that. I think that there has been some suggestion that the Scottish Government steamrolled us through using a majority. We did have support for the creation of a single police force in this Parliament. As members such as Roderick Campbell and Margaret Mitchell have acknowledged, Police Scotland is a new organisation, and so there are bound to be some teething troubles. We have acknowledged that operational policing in Scotland is continuing to perform excellently. Recorded crime is at a 40-year low, supported by the 1,000 extra officers that we have put on our streets compared to 2007. Public confidence in our police remains high, and all of that has been achieved despite the inevitable funding pressures arising from the Westminster austerity agenda. Something that Hugh Henry might wish to acknowledge, but certainly those in the UK Parliament should acknowledge, indeed having recently voted for a further extension of another £30 billion in austerity, so that is unlikely to help the situation. The eyes of the world have been on Scotland, and a great successful policing contributed to the success of the city of Glasgow's hosting of the Commonwealth Games, as well as last summer's Ryder Cup and, of course, the referendum itself. With the tragedy of the Clutha bar helicopter crash, which lets us not forget—I am sure that members from Glasgow will fully acknowledge that the police family lost some of its own in that tragedy—and the Glasgow bin lorry crash, we also saw how admirably our brave police officers cope with other emergency services in very harrowing circumstances. I do not doubt for one minute that members across the chamber acknowledge that. I just want to put it on the record today. Local policing, shaped and delivered in communities by local commanders, remains at the heart of Scottish policing. I have to challenge one thing that Alison McKinnis said in her own speech. In one sense, policing in Scotland is more local than before, in respect of local policing plans for all 353 wards, and more through that, councillors are able to have their say on policing in their area than prior to reform. I do acknowledge the point that Hans Allamalloch made about the diversity of our police force. It is something that Police Scotland acknowledges clearly at this moment in time with the restructuring of single police service. It is more difficult to expand numbers rapidly and to take on new recruit, but I can assure Hans Allamalloch that that is a priority for the chief constable and for Police Scotland. The true benefit of a single service is that every area of Scotland now has access to specialist expertise and equipment. I saw that for myself last month when I visited FETI's police station here in Edinburgh, and I met police personnel—both two-legged and four-legged, indeed—from the operational support division. Just last week, ACC Bernie Higgins highlighted the heroics of an ARV officer from that division, who, anxious that he may injure by standards, did not fire on a man who was attacking with a knife, and he was himself stabbed four times. Those are the heroics who grab headlines, but I have seen many other examples of excellent policing. Police work in partnership with local communities in places such as Hockhill and Allamalloch, a challenged community—one falls within the bottom 15 per cent in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, but delivers a 40 per cent reduction in crime in that area. I recently spoke to a Police Scotland youth volunteer who had experienced difficulties, but, thanks to his role as a volunteer and he is a member of the ethnic minority community himself, turned his life around and now wants to become a member of Police Scotland himself. I wonder if the minister would acknowledge that that good work, and we are all aware of it, is likely to put in jeopardy, for instance, if there was a stop and search campaign that was targeting some of those areas in an inappropriate way, as we have heard with the use of consensual search. I acknowledge the point that John Finnie makes, but hopefully I will be able to respond to that. Even in my constituency that is accepted in a rural part of Scotland, PC Jamie, a local constituency policeman who visits local schools to talk to local children, providing inspiration and advice to them. That is not perhaps the negative motion that we have before us today, but it is perhaps, in my view, at least a true reflection of policing in Scotland in 2015. I am sure that all members will have their own stories. I push for time, I am afraid, unless the Presiding Officer will let me. Highly up to you, minister. I may have to press on, I am sorry, to Mrs McInnes. I am sure that all members will have their own stories. I want to focus briefly on England and Wales. Reform is safeguarding all we value in policing from Westminster budget cuts, and we only have to look south of the border. I know that it is a point that some members will be uncomfortable with. I would like to finish this point, please. We are offering some numbers on morale on our rock bottom to see the benefits of our approach. Had we mirrored the calamitous approach of the UK Government, we would have 2,688 fewer officers than our commitment of 17234. That would take one in six officers out of the service. That perhaps is a good example of their election of duty. I will take Alison McInnes at this point. Alison McInnes. The minister has not addressed any of the challenges and shortcomings that have been raised today. That is quite inappropriate. I am taking an intervention from a colleague on the other side of the chamber, and, indeed, from yourself. I am trying to engender a debate here, and I am getting on to accountability and governance issues. Scotland's police officers play a vital and visible role in our communities right across Scotland, but the contribution of police Scotland supports staff as has been acknowledged by members. I fully recognise that it is crucial. Staff numbers are declining, and that is to our great regret. As Police Scotland and SPA always said they would, but we remain committed to no compulsory redundancies, voluntary redundancies or voluntary early retirement that is offered to staff as well as the opportunity to relocate or retrain. However, let me be clear that further austerity will not help, and we really have to strike back about the austerity agenda. I know that it is particularly challenging time for staff, but I recognise and I want to thank them for their continuing dedication and commitment in delivering that 40-year low-end crime. On the police budget, budgets are tight across the public sector, not just in policing clearly as a consequence of the budget pressures that we face at the Scottish Government level. It is a prudent Government that we are in, and we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but that is also what Police Scotland is trying to do. Great progress is being made in delivering the necessary savings, with around £880 million of cumulative savings of the projected £1.1 billion already having been delivered. Those challenges that we have experienced have been acknowledged, and I can say one thing to John Finnie, who I respect very much. I asked how many complaints there had been received about the armed policing prior to May 12 when he first raided the issue, and I am told that only one had been received by Police Scotland at that stage, and since then only 27 further complaints have been received. Policing is now more accountable and transparent than ever. Sometimes scrutiny can be uncomfortable, but there is no doubt that it is beneficial in the long run, and I believe that Police Scotland will respond and be the better for that. I welcome, very much welcome, the work that Police Scotland and the SP are undertaking with the support from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Clearly, there are lessons that can be learned, and I acknowledge that, particularly in relation to engagement between the two organisations to ensure that the SPA can hold Police Scotland to account effectively and at the right time. I know that the chief constable himself and the chair of the SPA are committed to tackling those issues, and the whole chamber should welcome that and support that process in a constructive manner. The scrutiny of this Parliament is essential in supporting the successful reform of policing in Scotland, however, let's recognise the progress that has been made to date. Presiding Officer, our police officers and police staff are doing an excellent job. Most of us take that protection for granted, but my visit to FETI has brought home to me just how brave our police officers are and just how dangerous a job they do in many cases. They have delivered for Scotland, and we should thank them and support them in their often difficult and very dangerous work. Police Scotland and the SPA recognise the challenges and opportunities ahead and are working closely together to deliver best possible police service for the people of Scotland. I, for one, am grateful for their professionalism and dedication in doing that. We acknowledge concerns where they arise, and I am sure that Police Scotland, the SPA and the chief constable are taking note of the points that have been made today in the chamber and will respond in due course. Thank you very much and thank you all for taking part in this important debate. I now suspend Parliament until 2.30.