 inches i isiol yn ymddinschw Overση a'r dau ymddinschwys, mwy fydd gweithio chi, y maed meddwl i ddechreundach i dda'r briffeir Yr Arfaedd yna, ddwy'n ddarsgau i ddarmiaethu cymdeithasol oherwydd y portafolau'r cyfrifawr yn awg. Felly, mae'r tornau i ddweithio i ddweithio i ddwynt ymddinschw sy'n ddwynt o'r portafolau yr ymgymeth i ddweithio i ddwynt o'r portafolio I will give a few seconds for people to get in their places. I now call on Graham Pearson to speak to move the motion. Mr Pearson, you have got 10 minutes. I am obliged, Presiding Officer. It is with some disappointment that I feel the need to press this motion. It is my belief that the Cabinet Secretary has abandoned his responsibilities in relation to police reform. He is tired, lacking ideas and gracelessly refuses to listen, leaving it to a private power struggle between officials to deliver. Key to policing in Scotland has always been the real-life empathy one human being in uniform can demonstrate for members of the public. That act of humanity delivered whilst administering law and good order to this day remains the very foundation for policing by consent. It enables police to walk any street in Scotland confident in the knowledge that they can deliver on their duties for the community. I have witnessed the impact of police and that impact on my community. I have stood in awe at examples that I saw firsthand of truly inspiring work from constable, sergeants and inspectors brought to my streets and I still do. It is in that light that I propose my motion. In my view, there are few subjects more important than ensuring policing is delivered across Scotland with full consent and cognisance of the needs of the public, particularly at times of crisis, and not delivered for the convenience of powerful senior executives, civil servants and politicians. I believe that this Government's approach to the creation of a single police service has been inspired by the needs of the latter and blindsided to the former. SNP members have been quick to remind me of statements from my previous life as a chief officer in the SCDA. Therefore, I remind the cabinet secretary that I expressed precisely my views on the principles that I outlined today, together with my commitment to a single police service for Scotland more than seven years ago when we first met at Paisley police office. I was disappointed then at his lack of interest in the concept, and I feel let down now by the cabinet secretary who seems to speak with no one or take notice or advice. His incompetent handling of the Magrahe affair, corroboration, stop and search, office and control enclosures have all been characterised by his view that everything is now someone else's responsibility. His absence in the armed police debate was, in my view, the final straw. The long-running controversy surrounding the arming of police is firmly his fault. The cabinet secretary stood aside as chief constable and convener fought a silent war. Egos and misinformation fogged out pressing issues. A chief constable leads the service, delivering policing. The authorities should hold him to account for what he does, what he intends to do and how that service performs. In terms of allowing officers to wear Glock 17 firearms on our streets whilst on routine duties, none of those responsibilities were properly discharged. Mr MacAskill sat in his office, disinterested, asking what crisis the public are in concern. We now know that that is not the case. Like stop and search, closures of offices, the loss of 2,000 support staff jobs, the billion-pound police service in Scotland has developed in a haphazard fashion. On stop, search and police use of firearms, current HMIC and SPA reviews, alongside academic and media commentary, tell a different and sometimes worrying story. How do we deliver true governance? One reason for the single service was the cabinet secretary's view that the eight police boards were ineffectual. I agree. I see Vic Emery looks as though he may have got it to some extent in his agenda piece in the Herald yesterday. He recognises that there has not been good governance on display these past two years. Comments on governance and operational independence from me and others show key officials are only now beginning to face the real issues. Statute does not recognise the concept of operational independence, but I would expect a chief constable to be unfettered in deciding crisis and emergency responses, but sensitive to the need to obtain board approval for his policies going forward. The cabinet secretary's plea has been that he was avoiding political interference and that doesn't wash. Had he been so concerned, he would not have engaged a private briefing on arming the police outwith the knowledge of his chosen board members. A meeting that I discovered only yesterday was not even minute. I am left with the unfortunate impression of a politician keeping his fingerprints off but nevertheless interfering with policing. That perception, whether true or not, does not feel like open government. At no time have I or my party criticised police officers. My criticism has always been aimed at the absence of action from the cabinet secretary to ensure that the authority delivered on their remit and to address the failure of a costly SPA to properly demand all those things. I have achieved full and timely briefing on policy issues. The public raised concerns so do politicians, academics and even staff and police officers began to raise their reservations too. To insist that, as some from the Government benches do, it is much a do about nothing, indicates a distance from reality that is worrying and reflects a preoccupation with politics and independence instead of governance and police scrutiny. Because of that, the SPA board, and I am one of the few in this chamber today who has attended a meeting, have spent considerable time reviewing back reports and not challenging the chief constable on options for the future and obtaining the kinds of information that true governance delivers upon. The board had no notion of the change and impact in the firearms policy. The board had no notion that over 600,000 people in Scotland were being stopped and searched. It was only after it became public knowledge that the board became aware that such impacts were being felt across Scotland. That is not governance, accountability and scrutiny and that does not deliver policing by consent. No one in this chamber has more respect for the police than I do and still do. The officers on the streets have had a difficult and challenging time, particularly with reform as we have seen through. I supported reform, against a great deal of pressure from senior officers and others, and the cabinet secretary can gaffaw, but he is well aware of the support that I have given to the concept throughout the entire decade. Qwiz Custodet Epsos Custodes. It dates from Roman time and people can feel sad in reflection that it still has a relevance in today. Who watches the watchers? If we apply that principle in our day-to-day management of what is now a national, a powerful organisation, one that I wish to see being a part of, being a success, one that I hope will reflect the anticipation that our communities will be well policed and that the weakest and poorest amongst us can rely on that service to deliver for them is what I hope to see in the years that are ahead. I know that there are major challenges that the service faces and I admire the executive for facing those challenges, but it does no one any good to continually suggest that all is well and there is no crisis and to continually suggest that those who administer the law are the ones who will judge how best to deliver. I would expect that the first question on any cabinet secretary's mind is to deliver true governance and effective governance on Police Scotland. The fact that that hasn't been to the forefront of his mind in the last 18 months is saddening to me and the reason that I move the motion this afternoon. I now call on Kenny MacAskill to speak to and move amendment 11114.2, cabinet secretary, seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We've discussed policing many times in this chamber in the last 18 months and, of course, Parliament and three committees debated the legislation at length before it was overwhelmingly approved by the Parliament, including all Labour members. I've taken part in many debates and answered hundreds of questions, and the First Minister has been asked about policing on numerous occasions. The Justice Sub-Committee has met on 22 occasions. At a local level, there are now 360 councillors who have a say in policing, an increase of around 150 per cent. Policing is subject to more effective scrutiny now than ever before, and this debate must be seen against that backdrop. I appreciate members' want to ensure that the new arrangements are working well, and they are. We had to establish a single service to protect policing from Westminster budget cuts. Reform is ensuring our policing continues to perform excellently. Scotland is a safer place, officer numbers are high, confidence in police is high and rising and crime is at a 39-year low. We have the best possible police service here in Scotland. Compare that to South of the Border, where policing has been devastated by successive Governments. More than 14,000 officers have been axed since 2007, and numbers are now at their lowest since September 2001, by all means. If that is the case and that is the causation, why is crime in England and Wales at a 15 per cent, at the lowest point for the last 33 years, when records began in that area? The drop in England and Wales is not as far or as fast as Scotland, but certainly the decline in police numbers is significant and huge. Numbers are predicated to decrease by 11 per cent, although Mr Pearson's colleague Yvette Cooper suggested that a 12 per cent cut in police spending would be manageable. The Windsor reforms have been imposed on the service. Moral, unsurprisingly, is rock bottom. Following a record low turnout for a national peacetime election of 14.9 per cent, police and crime commissioners were introduced at an estimated cost of £100 million, which could have paid for 3,000 officers and it's been a disaster. I appreciate members who have concerns about some officers carrying firearms on routine duties. The overwhelming majority of officers, more than 98 per cent, are unarmed, and of our 17,318 officers, just 275, are authorised to carry weapons. Divided across five shifts, only a small number will routinely be on duty at any one time. The chief constable has listened to concerns, and I believe that the proposals that were announced last week address concerns, while ensuring armed officers can still be deployed quickly whenever required. Reviews under way by HMICS and the SPA are crucial, not simply to this particular issue, but to more fundamental questions about how policing engages with the communities that it serves, how we strengthen policing by consent. We welcome the action taken by the chief constable on these difficult issues, but some members are still not satisfied. That's not just my view. It's a view of Niven Rennie, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, who said this week, that I would have thought that the fact that our chief constable has taken account of public opinion would be welcomed and applauded. Despite that, the misreporting and political point-scoring continues. We're seeing more of that again today. During the passage of the legislation, members from across the chamber rightly stressed the importance of no political interference in policing. We listened and we placed that principle at the heart of reform. It's central to the way Scotland is policed and the way we want it to be policed. Members would understandably be horrified if we did anything else. That is exactly why the chief constable should not be directly accountable to me or any other politician. That is why he is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. Mr Pearson appears to want to roll back from that in a minute. It may be clear that operational independence is different to accountability. The chief constable is solely responsible for divisions to enforce the law, but he is accountable, in our case, to the SPA for those decisions. I am disappointed by the terms of Mr Pearson's motion today. He is fundamentally with it. Policing should not be used as a political football. Mr Pearson should stop producing the police and the SPA and stop undermining the morale of officers and staff. He should stop attempting to score cheap political points at the expense of thousands of hard-working officers and staff who cannot answer back. We have come into my last minute a long way since the early stages of reform and the arrangements are now much more effective. The SPA stands for not simply holding the police to account but strengthening the very principle and practice of policing by consent, something that we can all support. We should applaud the continued strong performance of our police and recognise that Police Scotland working with the SPA is listening to concerns and acting on them. Unlike Mr Pearson and his colleagues, this Government will never use policing as a political football to score cheap points and we must not undermine officers and staff. This week, Brian Docherty, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, expressed grave concern about some politicians engaging in point scoring. That is exactly what we have seen today and that is especially disappointing at a time when policing has been widely praised following the outstanding policing of the Commonwealth Games, the Rider Cup and of course the referendum. That is a time to celebrate Scottish policing, not castigate those who serve us with such distinction. I reject the terms of Mr Pearson's motion and propose an alternative in my name. Margaret Mitchell, Ms Mitchell, can you speak to your move amendment number 1114.1, you have five minutes. It is important to stress at the outset that, since Police Scotland was formed over 18 months ago, frontline police officers have worked tremendously hard to keep us safe from crime. At the same time, these same officers have had to adapt to seismic and organisation and cultural change against a backdrop drop of a chief constable, Sir Stephen House, taking a number of controversial policy decisions with far-reaching implications. That has resulted in the new single force attracting the attention of both politicians and the public for the wrong reasons. The chief constable's policy on stop and search and the deployment of armed police officers to routine incidents coupled with the closure and reduction in hours of dozens of police station front counters earlier this year has been the subject of extension of criticism and deep concern. Significantly, that latter decision was taken and then opposed during the belated consultation. Despite that, the proposals were nevertheless still approved. Here, the chief constable's unilateral approach undermined the process of meaningful consultation and accountability, which is central to our democracy. That is an important point here, which the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand. Politicians' comments and criticisms about the lack of transparency and accountability is not political point scoring, as Brian Docherty, chairman of the SPF, has ill-advisedly suggested recently. Rather, it is a fundamental role of elected members of this Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, while the run-con file officers did a splendid job policing the Commonwealth Games, many MSPs have received complaints about the unfairable conditions the same, police men and women were subjected to and about how these grievances were handled. More worryingly still, a survey by ASPS of senior front-line police staff found that 11 per cent of those questions felt they had been bullied or intimidated. The survey also indicated a prevailing culture of targets that certainly has implications for stop and search and road traffic offences. Consecwyntly, the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that following the merger to form Police Scotland is essential to ensure that police staff and officers have a mechanism that offers them the means to raise legitimate concerns without fearing for their job security and where those concerns can be voiced, anonymously, heard and treated seriously. For this reason, the amendment of my name calls for the creation of a whistleblower's hotline, similar to the one currently in use for the NHS, which is also a critical front-line service. Turning now to the lack of meaningful contribution from the SPA on the arming of police, here it is totally unacceptable that the SPA, as the principal body that holds Police Scotland to account, was not consulted more widely on the standing firearms authority before it was introduced. Little wonder that the SPA Chairman, Vic Emery, has expressed concern that the body's scrutiny role is pretty much after the fact. Self-evidently, this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue and it is unacceptable and a dereliction of duty for the cabinet secretary to seek to absolve himself from any responsible to address this deeply worrying state of affairs. The deployment of armed police to retain incidents has been a particular source of concern for the public. Indeed, the lack of transparency and decision making within Police Scotland erodes trust in the single force at a time when police need to retain and increase this trust both in local communities and throughout the country. This is policing by consent referred to in the motion. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist party has sought to be constructive in our scrutiny of Police Scotland. This includes making positive suggestions for improvements such as introducing a whistleblower's hotline or employing retired police officers in schools to free up other officers to return to the front line. The call in the amendment, tabled in my name for the cabinet secretary to consider his position, is not one taken lightly. When the general public's trust in Scotland's law and order enforcers is in danger of breaking down the ultimate responsibility lies with the cabinet secretary for justice, it is his duty to ensure the checks and balances that should guarantee the enforcement of essential accountability and transparency about policy decisions by the chief constable. The single force is effective. In this… In this clothes... With religious clothes, the cabinet secretary's stewardship has been completely inept and I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. We're very tight for time. If members wish to speak in the debate, could the press request speak but not in? I call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Elaine Murray, a speech that has a very strict 4 minutes. Mr Pearson in his speech asked the question who watches the watchers and his motion talks about responsibility, accountability, scrutiny and challenge. I would like to take members back to what existed before the current structures. I served on Grampian police board for 13 years before coming to this place. One of the first things that I was told by a Labour councillor when I went on Grampian police board was that, in terms of who they put on boards and regulatory committees, he described the folks as, and I quote, the dros and the awkward squad that we cannot control in other committees. Police boards were the bodies that were solely scrutinising the forces at that time. According to that Labour councillor, what we had was dros and the awkward squad. I disagree with that because there were many good people on police boards. However, in terms of watching the watchers and making sure that the chief constable was held to account, I have to say that many boards failed dismally. That was shown by some of the final audits that were done on police forces and on police boards. Joint audits that were carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Audit Scotland, where they were extremely critical of the situation that existed in terms of scrutiny. The only board and force that came out fairly well, and I can only say fairly well out of all of that, was the Grampian police area. The rest, I have to say, made very grim reading indeed. Now, what do we have? We have 360 councillors on local policing boards, as the cabinet secretary has already said. We have the Scottish Police Authority and we have the justice sub-committee that this Parliament wanted to establish. I would say that there is more scrutiny of the police force now than there has ever, ever been. I will give way to Bruce Crawford. I thank Kevin Stewart for giving way. Will the member agree with me that the fact that there are now only five, maybe six Labour members in the chamber, we only have half of the afternoon devoted to this issue shows more clearly than anything that this is purely a political stunt? Kevin Stewart, Andrew R.D. approaching your final minute. I would agree that it is completely a political stunt and I would go much further because I do agree with Brian Docherty that this is point-scoring politicians interfering in operational matters. What I would say is that when the public has been unhappy with situations, there have been quite quick reactions to that unhappiness in terms of stop and search and in terms of arming of officers. There has been a quick response in terms of the HMIC, the SPA, local police and boards, the justice sub-committee and the entire shebang. We are about to see the changes that that concerns are leading to. I think that that is the right way to deal with things. It shows the right level of scrutiny, the right level of challenge, the right level of responsibility and the right level of accountability. However, what we have seen from some members is flip-flopping on this issue to create an instability and to interfere and point-score. That has got to stop. Members must keep to strictly four minutes. Please, Elaine Murray, to be followed by Christian Allard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others today, I welcomed last week's announcement from the chief constable that he had jetted in his policy of deploying on police officers and routine duties. However, like many and including many of my constituents, I wonder how this situation arose in the first place and why the checks and balances were not in place to ensure that such a controversial decision could be made without any consultation or discussion, why the Scottish police authority did not intervene and why the justice secretary stood aside and passed the buck. Several weeks ago, as a retired police officer, I informed me that he had observed armed police officers attending a counter-tongue between some street drinkers on the white sands in Dumfries. On 2 August, Peter Lenthal, a retired army officer from Penpunt, observed an armed police officer in a Dumfries supermarket, not attending an incident but buying his supper. Mr Lenthal had extensive experience of firearms and, instantly recognised as a Glock 17, he approached the officer, expressed his concern and inquired how many rounds of ammunition it contained. After that, Major Lenthal received a visit to his home by a sergeant the following Monday, who told him that the change of policy had been approved by the cabinet secretary. He then asked to sign a piece of paper, which he refused to do. Since then, another constituent has observed another armed police officer shopping in a different local supermarket. How was that ever considered to be acceptable? It is not just the decision to change the policing policy in this respect, which has caused outrage. It was the way it was done. I am sure that Dumfries and Galloway is not the only part of the country, which is concerned about what is felt to be the imposition of the former Strathclyde constabulary's policing policies and targets on the rest of Scotland. The relationship between the public and our police in Dumfries and Galloway has always been good. Dumfries and Galloway's constabulary was well respected and, indeed, there was much concern and a lot of opposition to the creation of Police Scotland. I supported that, but I was told and I told other people that local accountability would continue under the single force. It is simply not the case that local accountability is the same in Dumfries and Galloway as it was there. It has not been the case, and many of us feel let down and almost feel that we have let other people down. Unless that is addressed, there is a real danger of loss of confidence in the police, which would be extremely sad. It is extremely sad indeed that our local police at all levels do an extremely good job. They are absolutely exemplary. The Labour motion asked the cabinet secretary to resign, and I certainly do not do that lightly because I am always happier playing the ball than playing the man. I know that the Government benches did not like the reference to his decision on Almagrachy and his release, but it was highly controversial, as everybody will remember, and it was hurtful to many of the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. I am afraid that there is his role or lack of it in the closure of the police counters and control rooms, the latter again without local consultation. Indeed, Mr McCaskill refused to meet with the 30 staff who were losing their jobs at the Dumfries police control room when he came to the town. In one of perhaps the most disgraceful speeches in this Parliament, he dismissed, insulted and trivialised the genuine concerns of opposition politicians who were wrestling with the problem surrounding the proposal to abolish the requirement for co-operation in his criminal justice bill, and then he compitulated, did what we had been asking him to do and omitted the issues for further consideration. He stood aside when communities and politicians have expressed concern over co-op closures, stop and search and the routine deployment of our police, always excusing his inaction on the basis that these issues were operational matters for the police. I am sorry to say that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand the difference between interfering and taking responsibility and showing leadership, and if he is not able to do that, perhaps he should be considering a change of job. I am afraid that four minutes is far too short to debate the 203 words in this motion by Graham Pearson, the Labour's Justice spokesman, has put before us. Let's take words seven and eight, fundamental changes, say Mr Pearson. No, Presiding Officer, those are operational matters which were in place long before police cotton was created. Those operation matters were all across cotton in some police forces, and of course south of the border, following on with the role of the Scottish Police Authority Board, the SPA. It has been created to hold the chief constable to account, not to macro manage the chief constable like Mr Pearson would like it to do. Mr Pearson and his Labour colleagues chose also to ignore this and are calling operational matters policy decisions to undermine police Scotland. Stop and search was a policy that Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported, and yet today they use this important tool in police Scotland's toolbox to undermine the excellent work of police officers working, making our streets safe. Presiding Officer, as for armed police officers in our streets, Mr Pearson has been found out. We heard it. We know now that this Labour's Justice spokesman wanted a standing authority for his officers to carry firearms when he was director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. I believe that Mr Pearson should consider his position as a member of the Justice Subcommittee on Policing. I will replace it easily, Presiding Officer, and I shall explain you why this motion table by the Labour's Justice spokesman attacks the Scottish Police Authority for failing to hold the chief constable to account. Let me remind this chamber who has a remit to scrutinise all aspects of policing in Scotland, the Justice Subcommittee on Policing, as this remit, and if Mr Pearson thinks that he has failed, he should reconsider his position. This motion from Scottish Labour tells us more about them than it tells us about Police Scotland. This motion is about Scottish Labour wanting to macro manage our police officers. They did it when they were in charge and they want to do it now that they are in opposition. It's not about political interference from Scottish Labour, it's much more than this. It's about Labour politicians wanting to tell our police officers how to do their job. Labour did not have a clue then and they don't have a clue now. I remember in all these MSPs who was Labour Justice spokesman at the time and he has left the chamber now supporting police reform. Scottish Labour believed then that the change was essential to ensure that you have policing feet for Scotland in the 21st century and to ensure maximising investment in front-line services right across Scotland. This is what Police Scotland and this Cabinet Secretary has achieved. I understand why today the Scottish Conservative amendment said nothing about elected police commissioners. Margaret Mitchell didn't say anything in her speech. Yet it wasn't of those liberal Democrats great ideas to get elected. You just can't trust the liberal Democrats on policing. Presiding officer, you would think that Labour know that using Police Scotland as a political football will get them nowhere, exactly where those liberal Democrats are today. If someone should resign, it is going to be embarrassing, Presiding Officer. A member of the subcommittee on policing who think that the role of the subcommittee on policing is a political tool to attack Police Scotland at every opportunity in the media and here in this chamber. I will be supporting the Cabinet Secretary's amendment to this motion, Presiding Officer. There has been no fundamental change on the way police operate. There is no crisis. Today's Parliament needs to take this opportunity to congratulate officers and staff for the excellent work since the creation of Police Scotland. I ask the Mechanist to be followed by Christine Grahame. You would be given for thinking that the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 established Police Scotland. This Parliament established the Police Service of Scotland, but on taking command of the national force, the chief constable swiftly presided over a rebrand. Discarding the declaration of service in favour of a more commanding, uncompromising title was perhaps a premonition of things to come. Armed police patrolling our streets stopped in search on an industrial scale, with hundreds of thousands of searches lacking sound legal basis. The dismantling of valued local services. Those controversies have sparked genuine public anger. The democratic deficit and formidable appetite for wider participation in decision making is clear to everyone—well, everyone except the justice secretary. Police Scotland must openly welcome meaningful dialogue with the public and the SPA before it adopts a policy, not only once it is exposed by the press or by politicians. Such engagement is one of the most important clauses in its contract with citizens. It is not a cumbersome requirement to be circumvented. Police autonomy cannot be limitless, and public consent is never unconditional. Our justice secretary resolutely refuses to acknowledge that. Back in the 1980s, Lord Skarman noted that the constitutional control of accountability meant that, while the police should exercise independent judgment, they were also the servants of the community and could not effectively enforce their judgment without the support of that community, but the justice secretary is unperturbed about presiding over the erosion of policing by consent. The principle that the police's power is derived from public co-operation, transparency and accountability. He seems untroubled that the foundations of our century-old, world-renowned policing model have been weakened by a unilateral shift to an enforcement model of policing that does not carry the support of the public, weakened by a poor governance model that has allowed the chief constable to draw more powers to himself. The independent commission on policing for Northern Ireland examined how its single force could come rooted and accountable to the communities that it serves, and the widely respected pattern report concluded two words of operational independence, which proved a significant barrier to ensuring that all public officials are fully accountable to the people whom they serve and their institutions. The philosophy of operational responsibility, I argued, better reflects the need to be still accountable. Fifteen years on, Scotland is caught in the same trap. Given the police's extraordinary powers as a national force, they should be subject to unparalleled scrutiny. However, in the absence of codification of the chief constable's scope and reach, he is all but exempt from any constraint. Time after time, the cabinet secretary dogmatically obstructs and extinguishes rightful debate by invoking those two words of operational independence. Instead, he today again offers us a one-dimensional view of policing, that bobbies on the beat and crime figures trump any legitimate concerns. This is patronising, disrespectful and disingenuous in a response to a debate fuelled by local communities and the reasonable expectation of accountability in Scotland's national force. Of course, we all have the utmost respect for the hard work and dedication of our officers. However, until those problems are resolved, the SPA, Parliament and public will continue to be excluded from Police Scotland's decision-making process, forced to react after the fact, even when the force appropriates powers to itself. The justice secretary's failure to challenge this and his blasé reaction to the concerns of those that we represent show until he leaves office that there is no prospect of reform. The cabinet secretary has long outstayed his welcome. His charge sheet is long. He has presented members with a succession of ill-considered reforms. He is unfailingly out of step with public opinion. The secretary should not be afforded the luxury of quietly slipping out the door. Please close now. Christine Grahame, to be followed by Ken Macintosh. The Deputy Presiding Officer, I say to Graham Pearson who wouldn't take an intervention on the decision on McRahey for a compassionate release. The cabinet secretary took full responsibility. I was here, you were not. Turning to the Tory amendment, I say to Margaret Mitchell, I agree in part and in one part alone with that amendment that is a whistleblowers hotline, which I think I was the first to suggest that you should forgive me for taking the credit at the sub-committee. Turning to Labour motion, I say to Graham Pearson that some of your earlier scrutiny, since the inception of Police Scotland, had merit, but you have gone far too far. You are now beyond the pale. Quotes from Brian Docherty, chair of the Scottish Police Federation, representing rank and file officers. The chief constable is the right person to make decisions about policing in Scotland and not some point-scoring politician. I wonder who that could be, no wonder you are looking red. He also claimed MSPs and manipulated the issue of armed police to attack their political opponents. Police Scotland has had 24 letters of concern on the issue, me four emails, two of concern at the headlines and two criticising me for claiming that I wanted to prevent the police from being armed in life-threatening situations. Incidentally, those were relatives of officers who had been armed badly on duty. Today's headline in the Herald, Police Chief angry over crime figure accusations. No doubt through his comments, he could actually feel his fury at Labour in particular, though not named. I quote the chief constable, who said that Police Scotland analysts looked to performance figures, quotes like hawks, and of himself quotes, why would I compromise 34 years in the police for my own self-worth, never mind anyone else's? The leader in the Herald, criticism must be based on facts. That reminds me of that excellent mark twain quote, Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. Of course, Labour didn't even bother to get the facts. Armed police, 2 per cent on standing farms authority, less than Graham Pearson requested, as he's admitted at times, in his stint as director of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency. If the cabinet secretary had interfered across the remit of the SP in Police Scotland, he would quite rightly been accused of politicising police operations. As for effectiveness in his post, despite my open and public disagreements with some of the cabinet secretary's decisions, I have high regard for his skills in his post as cabinet secretary for justice and before that, when he had Graham Pearson's job as a shadow minister. I looked at the alleged cabinet secretary in waiting and considered his skills. It seems to me that Graham Pearson is a one-trick pony, unable to focus on anything but his former colleagues. He didn't lead for Labour yesterday or even close on civil culture reform because I suspect he knows nothing about it and left it to his very able and capable deputy, Dr Elaine Murray. Indeed, I suspect that Graham Pearson were a mastermind. He couldn't select current Scottish justice issues as his specialist subject. Ironically, by opening up this matter for debate, by challenging the expertise and appropriateness of the justice secretary, he has exposed his own inadequacies. I'll leave it at that, though some say that, with his relentless undermining of Police Scotland, which he purports to support, he might just be settling some old scores. I now call Ken Macintosh to be followed by Roger Campbell. I'm sure that no one in this Parliament needs to be reminded that policing by consent is the principle underpinning law enforcement in this country. Central to that philosophy is the confidence and trust that the public enjoy in our police service. I've never doubted Mr McCaskill's commitment to this country nor to his post as cabinet secretary. It is simply and unfortunately that his time has come. Confidence and trust in the leadership that he provides to the criminal justice system and the accountability that he offers to Parliament has evaporated, and I am sorry to say that it is now time for him to step aside. I believe that what we are witnessing is the effect of an accumulation of poor decisions over several years, including, for example, on the use of stop-and-search powers or the minister's U-turn on corroboration, on which, collectively, has led us to this point. For me, his handling of the whole issue of armed police has been the straw that broke the camel's back. I am staggered as to how insensitive the cabinet secretary has been to public concern, faced with the prospect of highly visible armed police becoming a commonplace presence on our streets. In fact, I'm still confused as to whether Mr McCaskill shares that concern and confided that view to the chief constable, or whether he just thinks that the whole question of the police carrying guns in Scotland is none of his business. When MSPs across the chamber questioned the cabinet secretary in this issue earlier this summer, I found his response both defensive and dismissive. Even if the cabinet secretary genuinely believes that the subject of armed police is not an issue for which he should be held accountable, does he not recognise the equally genuine public anxiety at the absence of any process of democratic accountability? The new national police service and the Scottish police authority are creatures of Mr McCaskill's own making. He assured this Parliament that the new relationship would be sufficient to provide the scrutiny and accountability that the public sought, and yet it has fallen at the first hurdle. Perhaps we should not be surprised when Audit Scotland reported on the whole process of police reform, a bill taken through Parliament by Mr McCaskill, that revealed a horror show of poor decision making and inadequate leadership. As we all now know, a full business case was never produced for the merger of Scotland's eight forces, despite Mr McCaskill's own officials specifically promising the Scottish Parliament that this would be the case. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on buildings such as Bremner House, which were never used, a decision, again, taken not by the police but by the Scottish Government. Millions more were spent on redundancies for staff, some of whom were then re-employed, or worse, spent on removing posts that, according to the chief constable, had to be backfilled on a daily basis by serving officers. According to Audit Scotland, the cabinet secretary's failure to sort out the spat between Vic Emery and Sir Stephen House hampered the whole reform process. I think concluded and I quote, there have been difficult relationships between the Scottish Government, the SPA and Police Scotland throughout the reform process. Considerable work is now required to build mutual confidence, trust and respect. Presiding Officer, I do not believe that the cabinet secretary is the person to rebuild that trust. If I may conclude with just one example, three of my constituents, police staff, are currently engaged in a long-running dispute over back pay. They have, in fact, won their case, but Police Scotland are refusing to settle employing a QC at what my constituents fear is greater cost than the mountain back pay that they are owed. When I wrote to the cabinet secretary asking him to look into this case, I received yet another dismissive two sentences in reply. In different circumstances, I might have been prepared to accept the minister's assertion, but it is predilection to hide behind the excuse of operational matters to not face up to tackle difficult issues, not to lead Police Scotland, but to shelter in the shadow of the reputation leaves me simply with no confidence. Finally, I would like to begin, if I may, by reminding the chamber what the justice secretary said in giving evidence to the Justice Committee on 27 March 2012 at stage 1 of the police and fire reform bill. The bill, he said, quote, defines and clarifies the operational responsibilities of the chief constable more than ever before by making it clear that only the chief constable has direction and control of the police service and makes it absolutely clear that the chief constable has direction and control. He went on to say that the chief constable is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, not to the Scottish ministers. The bill, he said, provided for the first time the opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise policing. So there we have it. What it does not mean is that the cabinet secretary tating to the chief constable. That were the case that the public outcry would be overwhelming. As has been said already, armed police officers have been a long-standing feature of policing in Scotland. It is not new and, as we know, it has applied to a standard firearms authority since February 2008. The decision on the deployment of firearms officers must be for the chief constable. Again, as we know, standing firearms authorities are reviewed quarterly. Was the presence of armed police on the streets controversial? Yes. Were police Scotland right to review it? Yes. However, instead of welcoming him that, what would we have today? Continuing sniping, ignoring in addition that the Scottish Police Authority have yet to conclude their own scrutiny inquiry, or the HMICS, own independent review of the use of standing firearms authorities, has also yet to conclude. At the very least, that could only be described as a work in progress. On stop and search, again clearly an operational matter, let us not forget the role of the police sub-committee who took evidence on stop and search on 20 March last, at which Mr Pearson was present, and where Assistant Chief Constable Wayne Mawrson of Police Scotland said, quote, "...some sections of the media have reported it as a new thing. In fact, it is not a new thing at all. The reality is that stop and search volumes are down in the first year of Police Scotland. More searches were done under legacy force arrangements in total. They are down by about 4.6 per cent this year," he said. Of course, since then, we have had the Scottish Police Authority in May doing their job, reviewing stop and search and making recommendations, sensible recommendations too, on the need for further training to ensure greater consistency, on proportionate use and ensuring those searched are made aware of their rights. That, with the greatest respect to Mr Pearson, is surely a meaningful contribution. The police sub-committee, which I have attended on more than one occasion, does a job of scrutiny too, as we know. Indeed, my recollection is that, during the course of the bill, the cabinet secretary was very flexible on the nature of parliamentary scrutiny and thought that it was a matter for the Parliament to discuss and agree on. That is clearly not a cabinet secretary who does not recognise the need for accountability. Although the motion does not explicitly say it, Mr Pearson, as well as being unhappy with some of the events or work carried out by Police Scotland, clearly does not think that the Scottish Police Authority are doing a good job either. Indeed, it is reported in those terms in the newspapers. Yet we know that the Scottish Police Authority are required to place their annual report before Parliament. Their first report for the period to 31 March 2013 was published in November last year. To my knowledge, Vic Emery has not appeared before the sub-committee since. A new report is presumably imminent. Perhaps I could encourage Mr Pearson all the—to encourage the police sub-committee, or indeed the Justice Committee itself, to take evidence on that rather than indulging in those political antics today. That is a dismal motion from a dismal opposition. After the referendum, we were told by unionist politicians that it could not be business as usual, but today's debate gives the lie to that. Let's recognise the cabinet secretary's contribution towards record low crime rates and to building a modern police service and to preserving police numbers at a time of real pressure on public spending. Let's reject that motion. That has been a short but useful debate. It has highlighted two issues in themselves separate but from time to time into woven. The first is that of a single police force, and the second the position of the Scottish Government in general, the cabinet secretary in particular. Creating a single police force was never going to be without controversy. Anyone who thought otherwise is naive. Some disagreed with the proposal and found it fundamentally flawed. Others, like my own party, accepted the concept but recognised that it would require to be substantive measures to allay legitimate worries. Concentrating so much power, control and authority in one organisation, which happens to be the law enforcement body of Scotland, was always going to raise significant issues. My own party, in the absence of those issues being addressed, declined to support the creation of a single police force. However, to conflate that position into saying that Police Scotland is intrinsically flawed and not doing a good job would be quite wrong. The difficulty for Police Scotland and the chief constable and his officers is that a single police force without an external accountability such as we elect the commissioners makes Police Scotland political as night follows day. If accountability by Police Scotland is to a quango, the Scottish Police Authority, in turn accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, how can Police Scotland be anything other than political? The public, constituents and community organisations will raise their concerns with MSPs and the only place to which we can bring those concerns is here to this Parliament. We cannot say, oh no, we mustn't do that because the cabinet secretary and the chief constable won't like it. That is making Police Scotland a political football and interfering with police operations. What complete and utter nonsense. This confrontational stand-off could have been avoided, bypassed and buffered by the introduction of elected commissioners. There is an accountability deficit and the cabinet secretary has been denial about that, obstinately ignoring concerns, arrogantly dismissing critics. Why does this matter? What are the concerns? Well, let's start with stop and search. It has emerged this year that there seems to be an informal target culture. The single police force conducted nearly 640,700 stop and searches over a one-year period to the end of March. That figure is three times higher than the number of searches carried out by the Metropolitan force in London, with its population of over 8 million people. So how can that Scottish response be proportionate? The issue was raised in this Parliament, action was instigated, routine carrying of side-arms by certain officers. Only after it was raised in this Parliament was the policy revolt. Police Scotland has had many successes. However, the increase of 1,000 additional officers from 2007 levels was not down to the cabinet secretary. He only wanted 500 more officers. It was down to the Scottish Conservatives, and I am in no doubt that these extra officers have played a major role in reducing levels of crime. That success neither eliminates nor mitigates on-going concerns about accountability. Those have to be laid at the feet of the cabinet secretary. He is the genesis of those concerns. Add to that the, in my view, shambolic proposal to abolish corroboration. Regrettably—and it is regrettable—the cabinet secretary's stewardship of his portfolio is unimpressive. I, too, again with regret, urge him to consider his position. Deputy Presiding Officer, as I said in my opening address, we have discussed policing many times in this chamber in the past 18 months. As I acknowledged, I appreciate members' interests in ensuring that the new arrangements are working well. The time is right to stop scoring political points at the expense of the excellent job being done day in and day out by the men and women of our police service. I regret that it has continued during this debate. Margaret Mitchell is criticised by Brian Docherty, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation. He is elected by the rank and file officers to represent their interests, and it is right that he should speak out for those brave men and women. Elaine Murray has introduced the police service of Scotland by defining them as strathclidisation when she sits next to a member who had continued his and many-year service in that organisation. Alison McInnes criticised, although we remember that, while she champions through the Liberal Democrats' community policing, it appears that the Liberal Democrats do not appear willing to pay for it when it applies to their own party political conference. Scotland is a safer place, and despite Westminster cuts reform, it has ensured that crime remains at a 39-year low, police numbers are 1,000 higher than it was in 2007, and public confidence in our police is high and rising. Scotland has been on the international stage like never before in recent weeks, and the world is watched as the Commonwealth Games, the Ryder Cup and the referendum have run free from threat, issue or incident. That is directly attributable to a police service that delivers excellence and a police service that we can have confidence and pride in. That is what the people in Scotland care about, to say that there is no policing by consent is wrong. The 2012 legislation establishes clear routes for scrutiny, engagement and oversight, be that in this Parliament through the chamber and for the first time from the dedicated justice sub-committee on policing. At a national level, with the Scottish Police Authority, HMICS or indeed PIRC, at a local level, through local scrutiny boards with more elected members involved than ever before, as we heard from Kevin Stewart. At the partnership level, through emphasis on close engagement in community planning and the principles of joint working, the appropriate checks and balances are in place, and those are working as we have seen the police and agencies respond, whether in changes made by the chief constable or reviews to be and being carried out as we speak by SPA and HMICS. There is always room for improvement, but that has been acknowledged by all parties and work is under way to further build on the good relationships that have moved forward so positively over the past 18 months. In progressing this work, we do so against the backdrop of a system that we have built from the legislation that this Parliament overwhelmingly backed. That is working well. Let us collectively take pride in this and stop using our national police service as a political football. International observers from across the globe are taking an interest in the effective approach that we are taking to police reform in Scotland. With recent visits from colleagues from countries such as Sweden, Serbia, the Yemen and the Republic of Ireland and indeed only this month, the Irish Parliament praised our reform and said that it was impressed by the SPA and is looking at greater detail at it. We are a long, long way from the problems that our colleagues face south of the border. Where policing is being attacked and the morale of officers and staff is rock bottom, and the profile of police and crime commissioners at Annabel Goldie has championed for many, many a year is raised more through their indiscretions than through their positive impact on communities and where their cost comes at the expense of officers on the beat. I am sure that police in England in a way of people would rather have a bobby than a commissioner. There should not be and there will not be political interference in policing under my watch. Indeed, it is enshrined rightly and correctly in the legislation that this Parliament passed. The SPA stands for not simply holding the police service to account but the strengthening of the very principle and practice of policing with the consent of the people of Scotland. I believe that this is something that we can all stand for and in doing so we must collectively give the SPA the space to fill the role that they are effectively moving into and that is supported by the Justice Sub-Committee that acts to give the national oversight that we deserve for a national police service and that came from discussions that took place from myself with Mr Pearson and so I once again asked this Parliament to join with the people of Scotland to celebrate Scottish policing. I do believe that Mr Pearson has managed to unite the SPF, ASPs and the chief constable. I do think that that is actually more in sorrow than in anger from their terms but I do in the strongest terms reject the terms of Mr Pearson's motion and move the amendment in my own name. Very nice. I now call Ingrid Pearson to wind up the debate. Eight minutes please. I'm grateful, Presiding Officer. Can I open the closing remarks that I make by indicating that nowhere in the motion is there an attack on Police Scotland? The responses that have been made in the chamber today from the Government to Benches has addressed a question that was never placed to them. What I didn't invite from the cabinet secretary was any interference in policing nor any direction from the cabinet secretary to the chief constable, in actual fact the very opposite. Having created the mechanism for accountability and that mechanism was the Scottish Police Authority, I did expect him to ensure that that authority fulfilled its responsibilities and ensured that the chief officer and his executive were answerable to that authority on behalf of the people of Scotland. He's quite correct that, after some discussions in this Parliament and outwith this chamber, he agreed that we could create a scrutiny sub-committee here in this Parliament. I believe that, without the existence of that scrutiny sub-committee, many of the issues that we are now discussing would have never come to a head within this chamber. It's right when you live in a family that has imperfections, not to ignore those imperfections but to deal with them and deal with them in an adult and mature fashion. That's what's been missing in this last 18 months, two years. I'm disappointed in Ms Graham. She's well known for her sophistry, and instead of being dealing with the issues that we've mentioned over the last 18 months, to mind the person who stands here opening up some of the wounds that need to be dealt with. Instead of dealing with the issues, she decided to attack me personally. I'm sorry that she thinks I'm a one-trick pony. I've obviously been wasting my time the last few years in justice committee and in the sub-committee because I had thought that I played my part in all the work that we did in those committees. I think that on occasions she appreciated the contributions, but our memories are short in that regard. Kevin Stewart mentioned his 13 years on a police committee dealing with police board matters. It is right that many board members did their best in these circumstances, but there's no doubt that collectively we agreed that it was not the kind of governance that met the needs for the 21st century. I agreed and acknowledged in my first presentation that the creation of a new board with the kind of strength and the investigative process was the way forward. It wasn't delivered. The board has looked like a reviewing company, a company that received reports and tick boxes, and certainly when I attended that meeting after five hours I gave up the will to maintain and left to go and deal with other matters. Operational independence is a concept. It's a concept that was eluded and played out in 1960. It was, according to the chair of that review, a concept that ensured that the police could investigate, report and, in the context of England and Wales, prosecute suspects without fear or favour. It was never meant to be a principle that allowed a chief officer to conduct business, according to his or her wishes, without any endorsement from some oversight body. The problem for working officers is that without that public debate in a forum, without a commonly accepted knowledge of what a police force exists to deliver, controversy will occur. There has been controversy about target setting. I attended with another committee meeting at one of the divisions in Scotland, spoke to the management and was very impressed with what they had to say in terms of their arrangements. However, as a committee member, we were given very direct and clear evidence that officers on the street fell under pressure to deliver on targets and fell under pressure to engage and stop searches and conduct certain parts of the policing outcome. That needs to be known and either endorse by the authorities the right way forward or the chief constable persuaded that there is a different way to go about the delivery of their business. That is what the board is there to do, not the justice secretary. I accept that, I have always accepted that. Equally, in the context in which the cabinet secretary indicates that he will not interfere, I am still left in the quandary. Why does a chief constable come to report to him about the carrying of firearms in Scotland but not his own board? There was mention from Mr Alard that it was already in place. I know from speaking to those who were in the Highland Police Board that they had no knowledge that they had authorised the carrying of firearms and routine duties, and neither did those in the Strachlight board. Reform has always been a matter of controversy. It was always going to be difficult. There is no doubt about that, and much has been achieved by Police Scotland in the past 18 months that we can all be proud of. However, it saves this chamber no grace to try and misrepresent what we are trying to do here in the chamber, to hold this Government to account and to ask it to deliver on the promises that this cabinet secretary made to ensure the Scottish Police Authority the ability to hold the chief constable to account for policing of Scotland. That is what we have tried to deliver over the past two years. As a frustration, we have not managed it. I hear Mr Swinney saying that on the front bench. We have not managed it, and because we have not managed it, we have produced here a motion that is the only option left to us where we are not being listened to, our suggestions are ignored, and our approaches are maligned and misconstrued. I would hope that, after today's debate, the SNP will go back into the rooms and reconsider the way in which they represent the matters that we have raised during this afternoon's debate. There is a question about falling crime. Yes, there is falling crime. I am pleased. I live in a community that is crime free, and those crimes that do occur across Scotland are falling quickly. Bear in mind that, in America, they claim that 64 per cent falls and across Europe huge falls in crime too. We need to understand what we expect of our police service, and I look forward to a police service that polices Scotland with consent and with the full confidence of everyone in this chamber delivered by the police authority on behalf of our communities. That concludes the debate on policing. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 11116, in the name of Johann Lamont on Scotland's future. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak what is now, or as soon as possible. Ms Lamont, if you are ready, 10 minutes or thereby. We are extraordinarily tight for time today, forgive me, and therefore we will not be able to call the final speaker. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. I hope that we can have a productive debate. It felt as if the last one became very aggressive and unpleasant. We need to find a way of moving on to make sure that we see this place as a creative and open place. The intention of the motion was that we could start exploring the possibilities and the options that Parliament might take forward over the next two years. We know that, of course, in Scotland we made history on September 18. We made a significant decision, and for the first time it was a democratic decision of the people of Scotland that we should stay strong in the United Kingdom. We really ought to resist the temptation to rewrite history but grasp the opportunity together to shape the future, a future of a strong Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom, responding to the priorities of people right across the country. I know that we all remember the referendum debate in different ways, with different emphasises and different priorities. On one side it might be that people looked at the issue of powers, how to make the Parliament work effectively inside the United Kingdom, looking at what powers are consistent with the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom itself, the very heart of the argument for the United Kingdom. On the other side, of course, the debate about how we create a fairer Scotland, a more equal Scotland, where the NHS and childcare in particular featured very strongly as key areas that were precious to people, that people understood were significant and that people on either side of the debate were wrestling with that in how we could make sure that that was progressed. We know that those were significant issues for people far beyond this place. I think that it is important that we have to accept the result. We should not attempt to rewrite what that result meant. We should resist the temptation in the chamber to suggest that somehow the result was robbed from the people who were arguing for yes. Somehow people were duped or tricked. We presume that people did not actively go and vote no because they wanted to stay in the United Kingdom, but somehow they had been fooled. That serves no one in Scotland well to encourage that idea. We are also not to seek to redefine what the vow was made by the party's argument for staying in the United Kingdom or to try to misrepresent what that vow was talking about. Equally, I would challenge that it is not acceptable, as the First Minister has done, to identify powers that were not named in the vow, in order to establish a sense of bad faith. That is simply not acceptable. I am most grateful to the member for taking intervention. The member therefore clarifies what she thinks Gordon Brown meant when he talked about powers as near to federalism as possible in the context of the United Kingdom. First, he clearly did not support independence and, secondly, he believed in a strong Scotland inside the United Kingdom, sustaining the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom. I was surprised that the two amendments in this debate were simply about powers, but were not seen as an opportunity to talk about the other side of the agenda that I have identified. I say to people who I understand with all their heart, was committed to a yes vote, that there is a corrosiveness around establishing a sense of cynicism in bad faith in the mind of the public. All those new people come into politics and deserve to hear better than that one whole side of the argument was entirely motivated by bad faith. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to Johann Lamont for giving way. I agree with the sentiment that she is expressing there about people's engagement and our need to take that seriously and respect it. Does she agree with the general thrust of my amendment, whether she is technically able to support it or not, that we need people not just to be involved but to have a chance to shape the process that we must avoid becoming just a stitch-up between political parties? Well, certainly the work that we did in the devolution commission was for more than two years. We were engaged with Civic Scotland, we were engaged with the trade unions, we were engaged with business community. All those proposals have been out there and people have been thinking about this over a long period of time. Of course we want people to be engaged, but equally we have a timetable that you would reasonably expect us to deliver upon. I understand the dilemma for some within the SNP, because by having to accept the democratic decision they then have to give meaning to that democratic decision. It means that the focus needs to be on making devolution work in itself. However, the reality is that, if people are not willing to let go of their own constitutional project, I can only see this place as being seen as a stepping stone. The decision of the people to stay in the United Kingdom being becoming a bridge to the position that people soundly rejected. We need to move beyond that. We need to look now at how we make this place work rather than constantly talking simply about further powers. I have been very clear that there will be more powers to the Parliament. The vow is something that I hold very seriously in my mind, and it is, of course, being consistent with the part of the United Kingdom. My other argument here—we will not complete this argument today, but I hope that people will treat it with respect—we must be to pursue the agenda of a fairer, more equal Scotland. I have said ever since the result that where we can work together, we will. We will work on powers, but we need to work on the other side of the agenda, too. Our commitment to work with the Scottish Government and the Parliament where we can to open up our thinking, actions and priorities to the people across Scotland who have become energised—I make that commitment and I hope that other people can, too. The challenge for the Opposition is not to be oppositionist for opposition's sake, but the challenge to the Scottish Government is not to focus simply on what might be with more powers but on what it can do now. Scotland has been on pause for the past two years. We cannot find acceptable that we now have to wait even further while the debate on more powers is agreed. We understand that, pre-referendum, people had to say that only with independence could we make a difference in order to make that case. However, now, in the challenges of a post-referendum Scotland, only with independence is not good enough. We need to hear more about what can, the art of the possible, right now. In the next period, we need to re-focus on a politics that has driven change throughout generations, a politics of justice, social, economic, environmental, educational among stuther, a politics of demanding equality of access, of opportunity, of fairness and a politics of integrity, where we seek where we can to be open and honest in our debate and respect each other where we can agree and respect each other where we disagree. I regret that the amendments reflect a response to the challenges that we face. It seems to me to cling on desperately to the language of the referendum battle itself, with a focus again on the constitution rather than the changes that we can make right now. Our motion deliberately was written in a wide enough way to offer an opportunity for us to come together to find common cause. I will, at the time that I have left, focus simply on two issues in that regard. First of all, on the NHS. It was clear throughout the referendum period the extent to which people cared about the NHS, the extent to which people were concerned about any suggestion that the NHS should be privatised. We know that people want the NHS to work in their interests, but we also know that there are huge challenges there. It is not good enough to create the impression that everything in the NHS is fine and we do not need a review or a coming together to challenge that. We have said, and I have offered, that we should come together, get rid of the party politics, the politicking, the dividing lines and show that we are willing to listen to patients, staff and people in the NHS organisations and people across the country who are desperate that we wrestle with the big problems in the NHS, come together and find solutions to that. I do hope that the health minister will be able to respond to that offer of working together cooperatively. On childcare, it was also a feature of the referendum. Something across the chamber that we know all of us, there are things that need to be done to support people with their childcare challenges. It cannot be good enough that people spend as much as their own mortgage in funding their childcare or having to choose whether they can afford to work or not, especially when we know the importance economically of good childcare, socially and educationally. Our suggestion, simple step right now, a childcare place for mums going to college. We can do that together right now, but on the longer journey of looking to cap the cost of childcare for families, that is a journey that we can go on together using the abilities in this chamber and beyond to make a difference. In both of those, I believe that we can take the opportunity to rise to the challenge, and I do hope that others will do too. The reality is that we have spent time, money, energy and effort over the last two years settling the decision on the constitution. We shall put further energy into making sure that we craft powers that make this place even stronger. My plea is, though, that in the next two years we spend as much time, money and energy in making visible progress on equality, working together on those big issues that were evident right across the country during the debate. We must close, please. Let go of our own political projects in order that we can have a real debate about where we differ and a real creativity would instinctively agree. Let us resist the council of despair that means this place will simply be about arguing and rerunning a debate that was decided on September 18. Let us have the optimism that in the next period we harness the energy that we saw in the referendum debate to divide, deliver on equality and real progress. We must close, please. That is what we call right across the country. Thank you. I move amendment 1116.1 in the name of Nicola Sturgeon up to seven minutes, please. Presiding Officer, I move the Government motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon. Can I say that much has rightly been made of the remarkable shift that took place during the referendum campaign. The people of Scotland led an energised and engaging debate. The future of our nation was discussed with passion, vibrancy and wit across the country. The balance of power shifted from politicians and political parties to the people of Scotland. 97 per cent of those eligible to vote made sure that they were registered to vote, and 85 per cent turned out to make their choice—a record for any election or referendum in these islands. That unprecedented engagement has fundamentally changed the political landscape in Scotland. I accept—the Scottish Government accepts, of course—that independence was not the choice at the moment of the majority of Scottish people in the referendum. However, a vote for no was not a vote for no change. Between the 45 per cent of the Scottish people who voted yes and those who were persuaded to vote no on the basis of the vow to deliver significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament, there is a powerful majority for substantial further constitutional change in Scotland. The Smith commission provides a real opportunity to deliver that change. The Scottish Government will work in good faith with Lord Smith and the other parties involved to secure the best possible deal for Scotland. We have seen compelling evidence in the past few days of what the people of Scotland see as real change. For example, a panel-based poll conducted last week showed that 66 per cent of respondents backed extensive new powers for this Parliament, 71 per cent backed control of all taxation and 68 per cent backed control of oil and gas tax revenue generated in Scottish waters and 75 per cent backed control of the welfare and benefits system. Our engagement with the Smith commission will therefore start from a position of arguing for change that lives up to the expectations of the Scottish people, for change that will transform the ability of this Parliament to improve the economy and help to create jobs by giving us real levers to match economic policy to the specific circumstances and challenges of Scotland. We will demand change that will give the Scottish Parliament the tools to make Scotland a fairer and more equal society and protect us from unfair policies imposed by Westminster, and we will demand change that will enhance Scotland's voice on the world stage to allow us to put forward Scotland's interests where key decisions are being made. I made reference a minute ago to the so-called vow, made by the Unionist parties in the last week of the referendum campaign. It is a vow that sets a real test of good faith for the Unionist parties' participation in the Smith process. The parties that opposed independence must enter the Smith commission process ready to move significantly beyond the limited powers that they made early in the campaign and later in the campaign. They must demonstrate that they can live up to the language of home rule, near federalism and divo max. They must show that they are serious about giving this Parliament the tools to improve Scotland's economy, support jobs, enhance our voice in the world and make Scotland a fairer, more equal society. The proposals that are currently on the table from Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in our view, fall well short on all counts. The cabinet secretary is four minutes into his speech. At what point is he going to talk about using the powers that he has to create a fairer, more equal Scotland? Rather than rehashing an argument, we have had for the last two years. The member clearly hasn't been listening to my speech and I certainly hope that we get the power that we do not need to have the implementation of the policies that are outlined at the Labour and Tory conferences on welfare, which will be extremely damaging to the people of Scotland. We must have the levers that are most fundamental to strengthening our economy and creating jobs. The current proposals leave most of the decisions on welfare and social protection in the hands of a Westminster Parliament that are imposed the bedroom tax on Scotland. They mean that this Parliament would only be responsible for between 20% and 30% of the taxes raised in Scotland. We do not believe that that is good enough or good enough for Scotland. I started my remarks by highlighting the energy with which the public and civic society brought to the referendum debate and campaigns. That conversation with the people of Scotland did not end with the referendum. As Patrick Harvie rightly says, his voice must be heard in the work to deliver additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will be supporting Patrick Harvie's amendment to our amendment tonight because we fundamentally believe in what that amendment says. Therefore, I am delighted that Lord Smith has made engagement with wider civic society and the people of Scotland a priority in the work of his commission. I encourage everyone to make their voices heard as part of this process because it is the people of Scotland who are the guarantors of real change. In conclusion, the Smith commission process sets a challenge for all the parties in this chamber, a challenge set by the Scottish people to deliver real change that will improve their lives, a challenge to bring decisions closer to the people they affect, a challenge to work together across political boundaries. Only by individually and collectively rising to those challenges can we secure the best deal for Scotland. Parties that fail to meet that challenge, which lack ambition for Scotland or fail to listen to the voice of the people and organisations at grassroots in Scotland, I believe, will pay a heavy price if they ignore the demands and the wishes of the Scottish people, including people who voted no, as well as people who voted yes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment 11116.11. Mr Harvie, up to five minutes less would be more, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, I guess if we want to find the atmosphere that will allow us to explore the common ground, then perhaps we've all got a little way to go. I want to begin by saying that in a couple of days' time I'm going to have the chance to address my party's annual conference. I'm looking forward to having the opportunity of thanking my party colleagues new and old, whether they've been involved in politics and activism for a long, long time or just recently become engaged. I want to thank them for the spirit in which they conducted themselves during the debate, because just as over the years I've found common ground with the Labour Party, with the Liberals, with the SNP, even once in a while with the Conservatives, even once in a while, just as I've found it possible to find common ground on a range of different issues, my party had to find it in itself to campaign for the clear majority view supporting a yes vote within the party, but without ever disrespecting or undermining the friendship that we have with those in the party who voted no. Those who voted no have joined the party as well, and I'm really glad that our presence on the political landscape is still able to bridge that divide. It was possible to take a clear, passionate and articulate point of view in this debate without disrespecting people who voted a different way, and that was the bulk in my experience of the way that this debate was conducted. That wider public engagement, that re-engagement, that connection with politics came about in my view because this great big idea transcended traditional party lines. It transcended the identity of any one political party or political figure, large or small. The danger that we are in at the moment is that we now pull up the drawbridge again and say that that's that over and done with the decisions being made and politics is for politicians again. Politics is for political parties again. That is a profound danger, whether you voted yes or no, whether you are a campaigner, an activist, a journalist, a voter, a writer about their history or the future of Scotland. That danger is one that we absolutely have to avoid. I'm very happy to have been invited to my party and my party has agreed that I'm one of the representatives on the Smith commission. I'm happy to have the chance to take part in that discussion. But let's be realistic. The breakneck timetable, which has been decided and now has to be lived up to without betraying the trust of people who listen to that promise, cannot be broken. That breakneck timetable will allow next-to-know opportunity for people outside of the political bubble to shape the process, to shape the outcome, to have their say be heard and actually make a difference. That's why people turned out to vote in such record numbers because they knew that decision would make a difference in a way that all too often elections, many people feel, no longer do. If we want people still to feel that there's a reason to get involved, that their action, their voice can make a difference, we have to avoid the view that this is about political parties reaching a deal and being satisfied with the deal that we've made and simply implementing it. There is still time. The time that is available to us for meaningful public participation is not the time in the run-up to November 30 or whenever Lord Smith is going to publish his report. The time that's available will come afterwards. A few weeks for people to fire in their views by the end of October and see a report written by the end of November. That's not enough, but there will be months to come before legislation passes through presumably both parliaments to implement whatever comes out of this. Months in which we should use creatively and ensuring that this is not just about meeting the needs of people inside the political bubble but taking a little bit of power away from ourselves, away from political parties, big ones or little ones, and taking it back into the public. Is there room for common ground? Of course there is, but only if people on both sides of that yes-no divide are willing to move toward the common ground. We will not find the common ground if people dig their heels in and say, well, this is what we've published already or this is what we need to live up to the vow. If either side digs their heels in and says, this is what's got to happen, then we won't reach the common ground and will have missed that opportunity. If we do begin with a discussion, a discussion that is not just between the five political parties and Lord Smith or between the two Governments, a discussion about the purpose. As Johann Lamont rightly says, sharing the wealth of the country more fairly, strengthening local communities and local economies to make decisions for themselves and speeding the transition to a sustainable Scotland, if we begin with that purpose, then I believe that we'll end up with a compelling set of powers that may not be independence, may well be beyond what some other people have already published, but we'll meet the needs of the people of Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I begin by offering the sympathies of the Conservative Party to the family and friends of Angus Macleod who died yesterday? He was for 35 years a literally unchanging presence in Scottish politics at the time of Scotland. I mention him now because on the issue of the constitution he was inquisitive, passionate, informed and a rigorous journalist. I think that he will be missed by all of us on all sides of the chamber. I want to say straight away that we will be supporting the Labour motion this afternoon and we will not be supporting either of the amendments that have been made. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on reading the speech that appeared to been prepared for him so adroitly without his usual passion, but I would like to talk directly to the amendments. First, it says that we recognise the result of the independence referendum. Do the Scottish Government, because the justice secretary was out in Portobello on Saturday at a yes Scotland campaigning stall campaigning for independence? I'm not quite sure how one recognises the result and then campaigns away for independence as if the referendum is still to take place. Recognising it means respecting it and moving on to the subsequent agenda. The motion then moves on to ask us to note the response of a recent panel-based poll in the same sentence. Goodness sake, we've just had a vote of 2.6 million people, 85 per cent of a 97 per cent registered electorate and we are asked to almost give equal weight to a panel-based poll. There's no need to do that when we have had the most decisive political result in living memory and certainly my lifetime—an 11 per cent difference between yes and no in that poll—greater than anything, I can certainly recall, and on a huge turnout. Thirdly, it says that we are to deliver on the clear promises made to the people of Scotland. Well, really, I've got here a yes Scotland campaign leaflet. When an iPad it says, your chance to win one of 10 iPads—and I looked up the rules—the winners will be selected at random at 10am on Thursday 18 September, the winners will be informed by email within two weeks, and the names of the winners will be available on the yes Scotland website. Well, three weeks later they're not there, they're not there, and I don't think you can make small promises and not keep them and expect us to look to the Scottish Government and have them on our bigger promises still. I should say that, as we now move into the Smith commission, which we'll debate when we return, that I've tabled a written question asking to know what assurances the Scottish Government will give that civil servants will not be used to support SNP party political representatives in the work of the Smith commission. The SNP are not as primus inter-parries, they are there along with the other political parties on an equal status to contribute to the work of Lord Smith's commission in the period ahead. There are two things that I particularly would like to deal with in the last couple of minutes. The first is to develop something that I said in the earlier debate that we had, and that is that our focus must not just be on the transfer of powers to this Parliament, but on how we then discharge those responsibilities and powers when we get them. Although there are representatives from the various political parties working with Lord Smith, I think that it is incumbent on this Parliament as a whole, across all parties, to prepare to start the work of looking now at exactly how we will ensure that this Parliament, with those additional responsibilities, gives affectionate scrutiny and is able to discharge them effectively. The worst thing of all would be for those powers to arrive here without us properly and objectively, and without a particular political focus considered how we will exercise that responsibility to ensure that the people of Scotland not only see us with those responsibilities, but see us using them effectively and well to the benefit of the people of Scotland. The final point that I would like to make is to pick up on, I think, the sentiment underpinning Johann Lamont's contribution this afternoon. I think that what she was trying to say in her motion in acknowledging that people on both sides voted for change and that it is now incumbent on this Parliament to work together, that that is not just about powers coming here, it is about the mindset of the Parliament, and she talked about health in particular. A year ago, as the Scottish Conservative spokesman, I said that we would set aside supporting the changes that we have seen down south, both from the Blair and the coalition Governments, in favour of a publicly-owned funded health service here in Scotland. I would like to work with the Labour Party, developing the ideas that they have made. I am slightly concerned about simply divesting to a panel of experts the responsibility for the development of health policy, because ultimately we will be accountable for it and will have to deliver it. However, I think that that sentiment is one that, as a Parliament, we should equally be prepared to develop in the time that lies ahead. I think that we now have to work to make sure that Lord Smith's commission works and that the proposals come, but as a Parliament, we are effectively there to deliver them thereafter. I thank you very much. I will now move to open debate. Colin Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Hugh Henry. Up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At the outset, let me say, in case there is any doubt, I accept the result of the referendum. It was, of course, hugely disappointing for those of us who were campaigning for a yes vote, but we placed our trust in the people of Scotland to make this decision and we have to respect it. I should say, though, that some of us, and myself included, represent areas that voted yes. I will certainly be remembering that in the work that I do as MSP for Cymru. I represent an area with majority support for independence. Presiding Officer, despite disappointing with the outcome, I have to say that the referendum campaign was the most invigorating and exciting political effort that I have ever had the privilege to be involved with. It resulted in massive political engagement that I have never seen before, and 85 per cent turnout testifies to that. I think that there is now a real interest in the political process. You could literally hear it in the streets during the campaign, and I think that that interest continues. I believe that people in Scotland more than ever before want to be involved in the processes that affect their lives. One of the questions before is how to sustain and foster the sense of civic engagement and how to empower people. I very much agree with the points that Patrick Harvie made in his contribution about the necessity of achieving that. During the campaign, there was a clear sense that people want to see greater efforts to tackle inequalities in Scotland. In the on-going debate about Scotland's future, we need to ensure that this Parliament is equipped to rise to that challenge. Much was made during the campaign of the powers coming to us in this Parliament through the Scotland Act 2012. Earlier today, at the Finance and Economy Committee, Professor David Bell was before he presented a paper to us that said that the act implicitly leaves income redistribution as a reserved issue for the UK Government through the Scottish rate of income tax. We have already seen that it is going to be reserved. We have already seen at the Tory conference the only intent to redistribute income up the way. The Scotland Act 2012 also leaves decisions about social security out of our hands here in Scotland, with the welfare reform process set to push 100,000 more children in Scotland poverty by 20. I am not afraid that I do not have much time, but 100,000 more children will be pushed into poverty by 20. 200,000 disabled Scots will lose an average of £1,000 in the switch from DLA to PIP. If we are to meet the challenge of making Scotland a fair place, we need to consider how that place can be equipped with tools to do that. The process before is a consideration of further devolution that allows us that opportunity. It was clear in the referendum process that there is huge appetite for this Parliament becoming better in power to make decisions for Scotland. There is overwhelming support for significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament. 1.6 million people, 45 per cent of people who voted for independence, were clearly voting for such a change. In the Ashcroft poll that the cabinet secretary referred to, 25 per cent of those who voted no did so on the basis that he believed that it would mean extra powers for the Scottish Parliament remains to be seen how far that will be the case and how it will satisfy people's demands, but we know that they were also voting for change as well. If we are serious about the people of Scotland being sovereign, I have heard the leader of the Labour Party refer to that previously, then their voices must be heard in this debate. The panel-based poll that has been recently published shows that some 66 per cent of people believe that, in devo-max, the poll also shows substantial support for the devolution of a range of specific policy areas that are currently reserved, which can make a difference to our ability to improve lives here in Scotland. For me, the Smith commission represents an opportunity to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people to see enhanced powers here in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that this chamber will unite behind that, and I hope that the Smith commission can deliver. Both the motion and the Government amendment refer to a more equal society, and that is something that I want to concentrate on this afternoon. There is no doubt in this Parliament that it is something that is frequently mentioned. It definitely sounds good, and it sounds as though it is the right thing to say. Unfortunately, the reality is that we might talk a fine game about fairness, equality and social justice. The inconvenient truth is that we do not deliver. We sometimes, however, spend an order of time criticising each other. Frankly, we do not spend enough time praising what others have done. Today, unusually for me, I want to put on record my thanks for everything that this SNP Government has done for me and my family. While I am at it, I suppose that I should register the thanks of all MSPs, every MP in Scotland, senior civil servants, the highly-paid senior staff in local government and the health service, senior managers in colleges and universities, lawyers, doctors, accountants and the well-paid staff in the private sector. We all have caused to celebrate what has been done for us. Our council tax has been frozen since the SNP came to power. We now all have free prescriptions. Our sons and daughters no longer have to make any financial contribution at any point for their university education, even those who have the money and choose to pay for their child's school education. There are more extensive student loans available to students, even the better off. Those of us with young children no longer have to pay for school meals and primary 123. What have we got to complain about? On the other hand, as long as we say that we are committed to a fairer and more equal society, it helps us to explain all that to our constituents, particularly those who have not gained anything from all that. It is a shame that those in low-income households who have already received full council tax benefits have not received an extra penny in all this time, but it is a price worth paying to ensure fairness. Those in low incomes are with certain chronic health problems and have not financially gained at all from free prescriptions, but no doubt they will rejoice in our satisfaction, even though there may be less to spend on cancer treatments. I know that it may be frustrating for those from poorer backgrounds who might no longer be able to access a college place and poorer students at university who might be angry at cuts to maintenance grants, but surely they recognise that we are building a fairer society, even though no extra money has been spent on them. I know that low-income families who already receive free school meals in P1 to P3 will not receive a single extra penny with the new policy of free school meals, but everyone has to do their bit for a fairer and more equal society. I am sure that they will not mind that education budgets across the country have been squeezed at the same time. One last point. Bus fares have had to rise because of cuts by the Scottish Government to the grant given to bus operators to compensate for free concessionary travel. I know that it is causing hardship to hard-working commuters who rely on buses to get to work, and they do not have access to a chauffeur-driven car, but they need to remember that everyone has to share the burden for a fairer and more equal society and that someone has to pay for the free concessionary travel. Let us take satisfaction in everything that has been done for members in this Parliament and the thousands like us. Let us recognise that the talk is opposed to the action about fairness and equality has been supported by a broad coalition of Scottish civic society, and for that we should be extremely grateful. Let us tell our poorer constituents, who have not gained a single penny, that today we are renewing our commitment to a fairer and more equal society and that, although we might not see any material benefit, we are truly sincere in what we say as always. It is just that we would rather be judged on our words and not our actions. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This was the biggest democratic experience of my life. It gave the biggest democratic endorsement for any decision ever in this country, and we need to respect that decision and make sure that we follow on the commitments that we gave during the referendum and the range of commitments that we gave on both sides to make sure that this country comes together as a result. The debate and the discussions during referendums and elections are often more instructive than the actual result in the end. There was anger, there was frustration, there was also hope and ambition, and we have to capture that massive energy that existed during the referendum to change the way that we do politics, but also make sure that we change Britain in the way that people express their desire for that. We also, as Johann Lamont quite rightly says, need to be focusing on the big issues that people were also talking about during the referendum—fairness, economic growth, opportunity for everyone right across society. We need to meet those challenges, and that is why I think that this is a massive opportunity for us all to come together. For the first time ever, we have all parties in this Parliament, actually in Scottish politics together, in the one room. It has never happened before. That in itself is a massive opportunity. To bring together the 45 and the 55 is an opportunity as well to make sure that they are engaged in the discussion going forward. I would say that this country has never been better informed about its arrangements than it is now. I think that we are in the best place possible to make a decision about our constitutional future. We have had a three-year debate where people know more about their constitution than they would ever really want to know. That gives us a great opportunity to come up with a sustainable constitutional settlement that includes wider society. Of course, it must do that, but we also need to make sure that the forces of constitutional conservatism that have defeated us in terms of House of Lord's reform and A.V. and various other reforms are defeated. We use the energy of the referendum to make the big changes that people want. That is why I am delighted that Mike Muir and Tavish Scott have agreed to serve on the commission. With those two individuals, we have people who will follow through on the commitment that we gave in the referendum to make sure that there is substantial change. Mike Muir has a good track record in working across the boundaries and the parties to deliver the change that people want in this country, to make sure that powers are transferred to Scotland and that powers are transferred down into communities, because people in Shetland have as much suspicion about Edinburgh as they do about London. We need to make sure that we reflect the diversity that exists within Scotland as much as the diversity that exists in the United Kingdom. That is the commitment that the Liberal Democrats will give in the process going forward. It is a big opportunity. Let's seize it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is very interesting to have this debate led by Labour today and to have their perspective on the outcome of the referendum and where Scotland goes from here. We have had four unionist speakers today and not one mention of one single more power to this place, only about talking about what this parish council, as Tony Blair called it, the powers that already have. There is absolutely no doubt that the better together parties went into a blind panic when they were confronted by the polling evidence, putting yes in front of no. Until then, better together, we were quite confident that they would win comfortably. Of course, that is what the polls said. They put independence at about 30 per cent. Of course, the Westminster parties did not feel that they have got three minutes no, felt that there was no need to put divo max on the ballot paper. It was truly remarkable that so many Scots made the journey to yes, and I believe that it was the majority until the vow came on a panic reaction to the polling evidence, as was the intervention of Gordon Brown, who seemed to be making promises on the hoof. The unionist parties would have loved to have had their original no vote, which would have resulted in the city to school, and they could return to their self-serving political elite in Westminster. However, the enormous registration, as others have mentioned, turned out the 45-55— Mr Simpson, the speaker will be heard. It meant that the promises that better together put means that a rocket has been put up, the red and green benches in Westminster, and nothing will remain the same in terms of the governance in Scotland. I deplore the way in which more powers to Scotland have been linked to changes in England. A political game played out before a Westminster election. I await the delivery of divo max, which is promised by members from all parties. Rory Stewart said that we will deliver devolution max without any conditions. Gordon Brown has been quoted already, and Dallianne Alexander said that we will get home role. That to the people of Scotland means everything except defence and foreign affairs. I look forward to this place having the power to ensure that future elections are eloquent, articulate and well-informed 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote in all elections. I look forward to future generations benefiting from the fine-out resources now being exploited by the setting up of a sovereign wealth fund. The Labour motion speaks of the settled will. Yes, the people of Scotland have spoken, but hundreds of thousands, as others have mentioned, are now engaged and invigorated by the democratic process as a result of the referendum and will not let Westminster politicians continue as before. On those benches, we will continue to fight for what is best for the people of Scotland, but the ball is firmly now in the court of the Westminster parties, and the eyes of Scotland are watching as to how they play it. I would like to add my voice to the plea from Johann Lamont today to take the politics out of the NHS. Probably one of the lowest points in the referendum campaign was when the SNP suggested that you should vote yes to stop privatisation of the NHS, while the whole time increasing privatisation themselves. The NHS is a national treasure and is one of the few policy areas where cross-party support is guaranteed. We all know the NHS is creaking at the seams. Should it fail, we all fail. That is why we need a written branch review of the NHS to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century. We also need to include community care in the review. Local authority budget cuts means that we are now charging for services that we always thought would be free. If people cannot receive the assistance that they require, they inevitably end up in emergency care. That puts a strain on the accident and emergency departments. We now have weekly press stories of doctors warning of crises in our accident and emergency departments. We are also seeing an increase in bed blocking where there is no care available in the community. Recently, we met crossroads in the western Isles and, to meet their waiting list, they would have to double their service provision. However, they do not have the resources or the contracts to do that. We need to do something now. That is not a problem of the future, it is a current crisis within the NHS. Service cuts have especially impacted on remote rural areas where inevitably it costs more to deliver services. NHS Highlands endoscopy patients from Skye now need to travel to Inverness around a trip of over three hours. Pregnant women in Argyll need to go to Glasgow for ultrasound scans. Hard enough when this is routine depending on your family circumstances, but how difficult it is if there are complications. That is not shifting the balance of care closer to home. It is asking patients to set out on an expedition in order to access the care that they require. For our contracts that are being issued to the private sector, we see creep in privatisation as well because NHS boards are having to put more work to private contractors because they simply cannot cope. We read press releases of locums being flown in at eye-watering costs because of staff shortages. It is a false economy. We know that private care costs more as does reliance on bank and agency nursing. We need a routine branch review of the NHS. We need an NHS that responds to local need and delivers services in a way that is compatible with geography and that is designed in conjunction with local people. That is real devolution, an NHS that can cope with future pressures while providing compassion. An NHS that is good enough to attract and retain the best practitioners in the world. I appeal to the Scottish Government to heed the plea. We owe it to the whole of Scotland to deliver an NHS that is fit for the 21st century. The Scottish independence referendum of 2014 delivered two clear outcomes. Forty-five per cent of Scots want total independence in all the powers of a normal nation. Fifty-five per cent want to remain part of the UK but with substantial powers coming to this Parliament. In fact, we are told that up to 500,000 Scots voted no on the basis of the vow, chisalled on to tablets of stone and the front page of the daily record during the last days of a panicking no campaign. That number of people is greater than the no majority, so we have a clear mandate for significant new powers that the UK parties must deliver over this next chapter of Scotland's story. I do not be taking any interventions in three minutes, I am afraid, but the early signs of those promises are not good. The ink was hardly dry on that front page, and even before the count was finished, we heard the leader of the Labour Party, a signatory to the vow, declaring that he was for none of the Tory Prime Minister's proposals to take that forward in the way that he described. Myself, my daughter voting for the first time, and many of her yes colleagues who worked so hard for what we believed in looked on in astonishment, but no real surprise at the events as they unfolded on the morning of Friday, the 19th of September. It must rank as the fastest U-turn in political history and was immediately regarded as a complete betrayal of Scotland. Now, muttering in the background, of course, we had the predictable gaggle of Tory and Labour MPs lining up to rubbish the vow and the promise of new substantial powers for Scotland. Boris Johnson described the vow as a reckless promise. Christopher Chalk just said that it was something in inverted commas that no guarantee could be implemented in the UK Parliament, and even the respected Labour MP Jack Straw wants future referendums to be made illegal and the union made permanent. All those views, Presiding Officer, remember, these are what the current members of that Parliament think. Just think what's coming before the lunatics arrive in the silence to press their own agenda very soon. This gives us a picture, I think, of what Scotland will be up against and a coming resistance to the ground— Mr Coffey, can you find yourself to parliamentary language, please? To deliver mean everything meaningful at all. On the infamous Gordon Brown petition, surely this must rank 2 as one of the most ridiculous episodes in Scottish political history. Petitions usually call on others to deliver what they promised. They don't usually call on yourself to deliver what you yourself promised. The Labour motion talks about the settled will of the people, but I think that the will of the Scottish people is anything but settled. In Charles Stuart Parnell's famous words, no man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation and no person or party in here can possibly say to the people of Scotland thus far and no further. Generation S is growing in numbers and confidence. Scotland is watching and waiting. As Parnell says, the people will decide when the time is right to recover our independence and take Scotland forward to where she can realise her full potential. I move to closing speeches. Colin Patrick-Harvey, four minutes please. I suppose that this early in a new debate—and it is a new debate that we are in. We have turned a page. It is a new chapter that the independence referendum debate is over and we are in a new debate. This early in a new debate tone is one of the most important things to get right. I have no doubt that there are folk on all sides who get that wrong, as well as folk on all sides who get it right. I agree very strongly with what Johann Lamont said about the need for everybody to do something that is actually quite difficult in politics, which is finding ways to work together toward common goals. We are often very bad at that. I have to say, though, to get that tone so right and then laugh along at Hugh Henry's speech—one of the most cynical I have ever heard in this Parliament—is not—go on. I struggle to think how it is cynical to see the comparison between what we say and what we do. We have the powers here—never mind any new—but all we have been talking about this afternoon is new powers. Even using the powers that we have just now, we have turned our backs on the poorest in society. I agree very much with some of the criticisms of SNP policies that you had. I do not support the council tax freeze, for example, for many of the same reasons. However, the tone of voice in which he made those comments was in no way designed to encourage people to work together and find the common ground. Let us acknowledge that, if we are looking at the failures of our political landscape to achieve, for example, a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, it is clear that we need the powers and the political will—whether we are here or whether we win an election in Westminster—neither are those guarantees the political will or the outcome that we seek. I would like to refer to Jackson Carlaw's comments. Just to undermine the fact that I agree with Jackson on more than just popular television, he talked about the question of scrutiny. There are already concerns about the way that scrutiny works in this Parliament. This Parliament was not designed for a single-party majority. Whether you like that single-party majority or you are an opposition party, this Parliament was not designed for it. If we are going to gain substantial additional powers, we also need to enhance the scrutiny of this Parliament. I assure Jackson Carlaw that I will be making the case for action on that. It is as bizarre that we cannot determine our own scrutiny arrangements that set into the Scotland Act many of them. It is as bizarre that we cannot expel a member who is convicted of domestic violence, for example, or cannot change our voting age to 16, as most of us now want. There are aspects of that that go beyond the questions of economic powers and welfare, all of which are profoundly important, and all of which we will need to discuss if we want to close the wealth gap that has grown so obscenely large throughout the UK. However, there are aspects of our democratic governance that ought to be resolved in this Parliament. If the people of Scotland are going to have a Parliament that is not going to run the risk of being in disrepute from having a member convicted of such serious offences and us unable to do anything about it, there are a whole host of other issues, from energy to equality to transport, where not only we as politicians but a whole host of other voices are already chipping in, saying that we can do those things better if we put those on the table in the discussion about where devolution goes next. However, I pledge to all of us to ensure that we do not pull up the drawbridge and just pretend that this is all for us to decide. We have to put it out there to the wider public as well. Presiding Officer, I think that the key message from today's debate is outlined in the motion, and it is about all of us having to work together going forward, both with the powers that we already have and with the powers that we seek through the Smith commission. I agree with Willie Rennie when he speaks optimistically about the prospects of the Smith commission. All five political parties, I think, have put forward two excellent candidates into that commission, and I think that the combination of those talents with Lord Smith chairing it, with the goodwill of both Governments, with Civic Scotland being involved and with a specific commitment to involve people up and down Scotland, I think that the prospects for the Smith commission are good. I think that we should have some faith in the process instead of trying to speak negatively about it from the sidelines. I think that there is a responsibility at one moment. There is a responsibility on the Scottish Government here because they say in opening speeches that they are going to be constructive, that they are part of the process, that they want to make it work, but they have backbencher after backbencher after backbencher who talk about complete betrayal, who say that it is not a vote for independence at the moment, who say that the majority were actually in favour of independence until the vow came along. You are either part of the process and you are going to try and make it work, or you are not part of the process and you carp from the sidelines, but you cannot be both. I will give way to Stuart McMillan. I thank Gavin Brown for taking the intervention. I can give him assurance to the chamber today that whatever comes out of the Smith commission will be passed in full, unamended to the Westminster parliaments. Gavin Brown, how can one individual MSP vouch for five political parties as part of a process and for this Parliament as a whole and for other parliaments as a whole? What an absurd proposition that one individual MSP can vouch for all of that? I will say that the process was begun within an hour of the five result, which confirmed the referendum result being announced, within the hour. Within a week, Lord Smith of Kelvin was in this building speaking to stakeholders, and within weeks of the referendum the process has begun. I understand that the first formal meeting is set to take place in a few days' time on 14 October. A clear timetable has been outlined, and I think that all of us should have confidence that everybody is putting their very best into it, and it is incumbent upon all of us, including the Scottish Government, to do our best to make it work. However, you are either part of the process or you are not part of the process. There was some talk of us having to start taking more seriously the powers that we have or the powers that we are already getting via the Scotland Act 2012. That is really important, and I will dwell on one example from that. Tomorrow, in the budget, we will hear the tax rates and bans for the land and buildings transactions tax. One of the first taxes to be devolved to take place in April of next year. We need to scrutinise that very carefully, and we would need to look very closely at those projections. If we get that wrong, it can have a damaging effect on the economy and, in particular, the housing market in Scotland. If we get it wrong, it could lead to a shortfall in the public finances that this Parliament and this Government will have to make up in the financial year of 2015-16. We have responsibilities on us already. We are getting more, but it is up to us to step up to the plate and make sure that we deliver on the ones that we already have. Let me begin by reiterating what I said in my opening speech. The Scottish Government accepts the result of the independence referendum, and we will participate positively in the Smith commission process to increase the powers of this Parliament so that we can then use those powers to promote economic growth and a fairer society. That is the clear position of the Scottish Government. If I may say so, I think that from the front benches of the three unionist parties, the best speech by far came from Willie Rennie, because I actually think that Willie Rennie is trying to get the tone right and to get a positive approach to this. As he said, this is the first time in Scotland's modern history where the five major political parties have got together in one room to have this kind of discussion. Of course, I am co-riffing that by the point that Patrick Harvie very rightly makes, that even no matter what we agree is political parties, we have got to take the people with them involved in the process, not just handed the results of the discussions of the party politics but actually involved in the process. I do not have time. The other point that Willie Rennie made was 45 plus 55. Part of our job in this Parliament is to make sure that those who voted yes in the referendum and those who voted no can take Scotland forward not only in the powers agenda but in the economic agenda and the social agenda as well. We do know that a significant number of people who voted no are still very much in favour of this Parliament having substantially more powers than it has at the present time. In fact, if you read last week's Wishaw press, I have here a headline from Frank Roy, Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, and it says that working together to deliver the promise made for Devo Max, that is from a Labour MP in Scotland. Clearly, he believes that the promise was Devo Max. I believe that a lot of people in Scotland, including many people who voted no, believe that the promise was and the vow was for Devo Max. We will work constructively in the Smith commission, but the Labour Party leader, in her opening remarks, was talking about the new politics. Patrick Harvie has made a fair point that she obviously has not told her backbench MPs about the new politics. She heard them laughing at the very substantive points that are being made. No, I do not have time. I also say that, unusually, I thought that Mr Carlaw's speech was very disappointing in many aspects. For example, the comparison that he made between the independent referendum result and the issue of the panel-based poll—the point is that the referendum was a yes or no to independence—was a yes or no to independence. However, the point that was made and the reason why the panel-based poll was highlighted is to show, as Willie Rennie has pointed out, as well as Patrick Harvie and others, that there are many, many people on the no side who want to see substantial additional powers for this Parliament. Low behold, any politician in this Parliament or at Westminster who fails to keep the promise that was made to the Scottish people by them during the referendum campaign. We have all agreed that we want to build on the unprecedented public engagement and interest in Scotland's constitutional future to ensure that decisions are based as far as possible on the will of the Scottish people. Willie Rennie is right. Let us try and find as much common ground as we possibly can. We, as a Scottish Government, will try to do that. However, there has to be a will to recognise that there is a substantial demand in Scotland among the people of Scotland for very substantial—unfortunately, I do not have time—additional powers. Therefore, I think that it is very legitimate for the Liberal Democrats, for the Greens, for ourselves and for those people in Scotland, in various organisations, including the likes of the SDUC, who are arguing for very substantial additional powers. Indeed, no doubt Mr Roy, the Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishill, will be putting in a submission to the Smith commission demanding that the devo max be delivered as he says that that is what was promised to the Scottish people. You cannot use phrases in a vow saying that we are going to give you home rule, we are going to give you neofederalism and we are going to give you devo max and not deliver on those vows and those promises to the Scottish people. The fact that we are saying that does not mean that we are not going to co-operate. Of course we will make a contribution. Of course we will participate in the Smith commission process. We will approach it as Willie Rennie is doing. I think that so far he is the only unionist speaker in this debate who has, and as Mr Harvey and others are doing, we will approach it in a very positive manner, Presiding Officer. However, it is legitimate for people who voted yes and many of the people who voted no to demand what they were promised and what they believed they were promised. I say to this that it would not be the SNP or the SNP Government who will hold them to account but the Scottish people who will hold them to account if they do not deliver on that promise. I now call on Drew Smith to wind up the debate, Mr Smith. Eight minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Johann Lamont paid tribute to Angus McLeod on behalf of my party this morning, but I thank Jackson Carlaw for putting the comments that he did on the official report and associating ourselves with them. For the last few years, the business of this place has been preoccupied with one question. In the weeks following the answer, our politics have continued to be dominated by constitutional issues. We have heard that over the last hour. On this side, we have always been clear that entrenching and enhancing devolution was our alternative to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. Scotland's features should not be discussed without considering the powers of this Parliament. We are clear that the timetable that was set out before the referendum and the cross-party process that has now begun must be held to. We are committed to delivering the powers for a purpose that we are pledged to. Although we cannot accept the redefinition that is offered in the amendments today, we will listen to the ideas of others who are committed to devolution in good faith where common ground can be found. We will join with others with differing visions of what this place should be, but the parameters of that are not set by the Scottish Labour Party, but by the people of Scotland. It is they who have instructed us to continue devolution within the United Kingdom, not in competition to it. The challenge for us all cannot simply be what powers, but rather how is power to be used and whose interest will it be exercised. Powers for politicians at Edinburgh rather than London is not good enough. The story of Scotland's referendum beyond determining the people's endorsement of Scotland's place in the UK was also, as Patrick Harvie said, the participation of people in our politics. Across our country, people have come together and discussed their hopes and aspirations for our society in a way that has quite simply, as Willie Rennie said, never happened before. That can only be a good thing, Presiding Officer. In fact, it is a great thing. In the weeks following the referendum and this afternoon, too much of the debate in this Parliament has taken place as if Scotland's people had not come to any decision at all last month. This Parliament, with 18 months to run, cannot spend week after week rerunning the referendum, blaming groups of our people for a result that did not suit our worldview. We cannot accept a platform for a more powerful Parliament being built upon an argument that continues to pretend that this Parliament is powerless now. Neither can the debate about how we make devolution work within the UK be transformed into a proxy for the same old arguments, the arguments that lost for a separate Scotland being put again and again and again. It has been said so often this year that we live in a historic time. For months it was said that we were about to take the biggest decision our nation has ever faced. Presiding Officer, the year is not out. This Parliament is not out. The historic time has not yet passed. Our approach to the next period will determine Scotland's future just as profoundly as the votes of 2 million Scots on one side and 1.6 million Scots on the other. This Parliament was established with the hope for the future as its foundation stone. Taking responsibility for the affairs that are controlled from here is as important as negotiating the terms of our partnership with the rest of the UK. It was an argument made by both sides of the campaign that the success of devolution should drive us in our decision whether to recreate this Parliament as an independent institution or as a beacon of good democracy, passionate debate and informed deliberation within the union. The challenge facing the remaining time that we have here is just as important whatever your view remains of constitutional change. That is the common ground on which we should all now stand. One moment, Mr Smith. There is an awful lot of private conversations going on. Can we hear Mr Smith summing up the debate, please? Both the motion and the amendments that we have debated reflect that change was the language of the campaign and that people cannot now be put back in their place. I believe that the people who come to my surgery, as well as those who have never willingly listened to a political speech or attended a public meeting and voted for the first time last month. They have a similar demand of us who are privileged to serve here. A politics is not in the abstract but authentic to the real world in which exists outside these walls. How many times at a public debate did those of us on either side suggest some deficiency or other of the other side and watch people in the audience glaze over? It was put best to me by a wise man I met on the walkway outside his upper floor flat in Bradesquade, on the north-east side of Glasgow. He said that the trouble with politicians is that you are all the same, yet you spend all the time refusing to work together. The real issue has become lost and the ordinary people are lost to understand you. A few of us in here believe that we are all the same. A debate this afternoon has shown that, but when it comes to an inability to work together, he had a point. We are not all the same, but the challenges facing us are that over the last year we have had a stream of reports about our NHS, which has been driven at full speed, just to keep pace with the traffic of health and inflation, demographic change and medical innovation. Too many of the staff who work in the service and the patients who rely on it and their families feel that signs along the road are being ignored and that those in the driving seat have no map to follow. On childcare, we were all agreed in this chamber before the referendum that what we have now is not good enough. We may have different priorities about how we should tackle the problem, just as we have different views on the powers needed to make a difference, but can we not prove wrong those who believe that this term of the Parliament will be remembered only for holding a referendum? There is no bigger and more important response to all those who engaged in that debate on our nation's future than to listen to what they told us about the nation's problems and resolve to act together to create the better Scotland that was demanded in every single conversation that took place. The energy of the referendum, the willingness to debate ideas, was for me the prize of the past few months. We cannot let business as usual be the price. Tomorrow evening, we will all go back to whichever part of the country sent us here, and we will all enjoy some rest and some reflection. When we return, the Government will shortly have new leadership and we will have precious few days to define our politics for the future. I have said before that Parliament needs to get back to work, but you have said that it cannot go back to old ways of working. The constitutional question has dominated Scottish politics all of my life. The referendum has dominated this term of the Parliament. It has been answered and the answer must now be heard. To Mr Brown, it is not just the backbenchers who denied a result of the referendum. Mr Neil himself and the Airdrie advertiser just this week talked about the referendum simply being a staging post. It is not a staging post, cabinet secretary. It is the decision of the people of Scotland, and you must respect it. Powers over health, powers over childcare, powers over tax and welfare, powers over who runs our railways—these are important things—existing things and new powers. Let us argue not just to hold them but to make use of them with this purpose in mind, the purpose which united people on either side of the campaign, the power to make our country a better place. That concludes the debate on Scotland's future. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11123, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11123. Formally moved. I now call Paul Martin. Mr Martin, you have got up to five minutes. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to oppose the business motion that has just been submitted by Joe Fitzpatrick. Since the Parliament's return from the referendum, business managers have repeatedly sought information from the business manager, Joe Fitzpatrick, when the Parliament and the Government will bring forward their legislative programme. It would appear that the only information that has been available to us so far is that this programme will come forward after the Deputy First Minister's co-ordination at the SNP's conference in the middle of November. Surely the people of Scotland deserve better than this. Those who are voted in record numbers deserve to hear from the Government when their legislative programme will be brought forward. However, I want to be constructive and recognise— Order! Order! Order! Mr Martin! I recognise that the Government has been prevented from bringing forward the programme because it will be another six weeks until the Deputy First Minister is installed as the First Minister. Therefore, we are suggesting that the First Minister steps aside and maybe spends more time in the golf course and the radio programmes. The Deputy First Minister brings forward her programme for government on Tuesday 26 October. That will allow the First Minister to spend more time, as I said. It is time to stop looking at the issues that are not of concern to the people of Scotland. Do something that is meaningful. Stop the talking and do the walking. Let us move on and see a programme for government from this Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are not going to get that a couple of minutes back. Paul Martin has offered a complete work of fiction. Let me offer the chamber some facts. Firstly, the timing of the programme for government will see all bills progressing to the same timescale as if the programme for government was brought on the first week back after summer recess. There will be no material difference to the timetable of our legislative programme. Secondly, the Scottish Government continues to govern, as it has always done, effectively and in the interests of the people of Scotland. I thank Paul Martin for giving me the opportunity to highlight just some of our recent achievements. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance will tomorrow publish our budget, focusing on tackling inequality and economic growth. Scottish Water announced on Monday that there are £3.5 billion infrastructure investment, which will secure work to support some 5,000 construction jobs. We introduced a bill just last month, which will end automatic early release for long-term prisoners. We are taking through legislation to control the use of air weapons, and from January, free-skill meals will be introduced for primary 1 and primary 3 proposals that the Labour Party is shamefully voted against. Thirdly and finally, the people of Scotland are seeing through the Labour Party, a Labour Party that has betrayed its roots to work hand in glove with the Tory Party in talking Scotland down. The people of Scotland prefer positivity, vision and aspiration instead of the Labour Party's toxic brand of negativity, doom and despair. That is why the SNP currently has a 15-point lead over Labour in opinion polls. That is why the SNP now has over 52,000 brand new members since the referendum. Crucially for the Labour Party, probably more members of our trade union group than the entire membership of Scottish Labour. That is why the people of Scotland will continue to put trust in this party of government that continues to discharge its duties in the best interests of the people of Scotland. I move the business motion on behalf of the bureau. I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11123, in the name of Jofix Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11123, in the name of Jofix Patrick, is as follows. Yes, 68. No, 49. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of three business motions, 11126 to 11128, in the name of Jofix Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out various legislative timetables. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-and-speak button now. I propose to ask a single question on motion numbers 11126 to 11128. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected. Therefore, I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motions number 11126 to 11128, in the name of Jofix Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are, therefore, agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Jofix Patrick to move motions number 11124 and 11125 on approval of SSIs. The questions on those motions will come at decision time to which we now come. There are eight questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, in relation to the debate on policing, if the amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Margaret Mitchell falls? The first question, then, is amendment number 11114.2, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, which seeks to amend motion number 11114, in the name of Graham Pearson on policing, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote of amendment number 11114.2, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 54. There was one abstention. The amendment is, therefore, agreed to. The amendment in the name of Margaret Mitchell falls. The next question is at motion number 11114, in the name of Graham Pearson as amended, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11114, in the name of Graham Pearson as amended, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 54. There was one abstention. The motion as amended is, therefore, agreed to. The next question, and you need to pay attention on this one. The next question is at amendment number 11116.11, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend amendment number 11116.1, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon, on Scotland's future, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11116.11, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is as follows. Yes, 68. No, 49. There were no abstensions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 11116.1, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon as amended, which seeks to amend motion number 11116, in the name of Johann Lamont, on Scotland's future, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11116.1, in the name of Nicholas Sturgeon, is as follows. Yes, 65. No, 52. There were no abstensions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11116, in the name of Johann Lamont, as amended, on Scotland's future, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11116, in the name of Johann Lamont, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 65. No, 52. There were no abstensions. Therefore, the motion, as amended, is, therefore, agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11124, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is, therefore, agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11125, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is, therefore, agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members. Business members should leave the mae'r cwmwyshwt yn gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio.