 The next item of business is a debate on motion 13995 in the name of Humza Yousaf on violence reduction in Scotland, progress and future priorities. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I now call on Ash Denham to speak to and move the motion in the name of Humza Yousaf. Minister, 11 minutes are thereabouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion. Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, and good afternoon. It is a pleasure to open this debate today, my first as Minister for Community Safety, and to be able to highlight the significant progress made on this to date to reduce violence in Scotland and what our future priorities are in this area. Over the last decade, recorded violent crime has almost halved, and we have seen a parallel fall in the number of emergency admissions to hospital resulting from assault. That trend is also reflected in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey. The fact is that violence has been reducing over the last decade, and I would like to pay tribute today to all those who have played their part in driving this downward trend. That includes colleagues from across the chamber, from Labour and also the Liberal Democrats, who have seen violence as a national priority during their times in office. The hard work that has been taken forward subsequently under this SNP Government has resulted in people feeling safer in their communities, with fear of crime continuing to decrease. It is this direction of travel that is attracting attention from far and wide. Our approach to reducing violence in Scotland is being advocated by the World Economic Forum and is drawing interest from across the world, including Canada, Australia, America, Japan, South Africa, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania and Estonia, and many of whom are now looking to Scotland for answers. Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cresedad Dick, visited Scotland to learn more about our approach to violence. Yesterday, I was pleased to note that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced that the City of London will have its own violence reduction unit. That will be based on the Scottish model and particularly on our public health approach. I wish the city authorities well as they adapt to meet the particular challenges that they may face in London. Why is the world-wide interest in what Scotland is doing to reduce violence? We have come a long way since 2005, when the United Nations declared Scotland the most violent country in the developed world. The same year, a world health organisation study of crime figures in 21 European countries showed that Glasgow was the murder capital of Europe. More often than not, solutions to violence were sought in the criminal justice system through increasing stop and searches and tougher sentencing. In 2016, we increased the maximum penalty for possession of a knife from four years to five years, and the average length of custodial sentences imposed for knife crimes has almost doubled over the past decade. People who are convicted of a crime of violence in Scottish courts are now more likely to receive a custodial sentence than they were 10 years ago. Whilst those are important interventions to stop violent crime, we also knew that we needed to do something different. The violence reduction unit was formed by Strathclyde police with a specific focus on Glasgow. Soon after, it became Scotland's national centre of expertise. The unit used analysis, which showed that Glasgow's most problematically violent areas were also its poorest, and with the highest rates of addiction, domestic abuse, teenage pregnancy and suicide. Neil Findlay I am following carefully what she is saying, and I agree with a great deal of it. Does the current situation in local government, where we see such year-on-year cuts to local services, have an impact on some of the interventions that we have at a local level that could reverse some of the good work that is being done? Maureen Watt I think that the member should agree that we have given a very fair settlement to local government. We have also invested substantially in violence prevention programmes, which I believe—and I will continue to talk about this this afternoon—has paid real dividends in Scotland, so much so that the approach that we are taking here in Scotland has been looked at from other countries around the world. Violence was recast as a disease, and those were the symptoms. That was the foundation of our public health approach to reducing violence in Scotland. We come from the understanding that violence is preventable, not inevitable. Since 2008, we have provided the violence reduction unit with an unprecedented £12 million. It has tackled the root causes of violence rather than just treating the symptoms. Over the past few years, we have supported a number of other violence reduction programmes, for example mentors in violence prevention. That programme aims to support young people to have discussions on gender-based violence issues. We have provided funding to support organisations such as Medics Against Violence, which targets young people for being killed or becoming victims of serious life-changing injuries. The programme uses health volunteers to deliver education sessions within secondary schools, talking to young people about the consequences of violence and how to keep themselves safe. We are supporting Medics Against Violence to deliver their Ask Support care programme, which aims to give NHS staff, including dentists, and then vets, hairdressers, beauticians or firefighters, the skills to reach out to those when there are signs of potential domestic abuse. Since 2009, we have also supported the No Knives Better Lives programme, which has specifically targeted young people aged 11 to 18 years old to address the issue of knife carrying. It is the success of the local partnerships that are involved, including a wide range of diversionary activities that are funded through Scotland's unique cashback for communities programme, which is making a real difference. Where credit is due, our young people are now making better choices for their lives and fewer are now carrying knives. I was particularly honoured last week to attend a celebration of the police Scotland youth volunteers at the Parliament to learn about the difference that the initiative is making to young people and their communities. We have also supported the development of the street and arrow food truck. Those programmes offer people with previous convictions wishing to turn their lives away from the cycle of violence tailored interventions that will support them in achieving that. Yesterday, I met with Leanne and Callum two young people who had recently been supported by the VRU approach. Both of them had been in and out of prison, addiction issues and experienced violent and chaotic lifestyles. However, Leanne and Callum, through street and arrow's tailored support and intervention, now have steady jobs for the first time in their lives and are positive, contributing members of their communities. Their lived experience is a powerful demonstration of how the public health approach to justice changes lives for the better. I am pleased that our recent programme for government includes a package of measures to better support the victims of crime. We are extending the delivery of our navigators programme into two new hospitals, Crosshouse in Ayrshire and the Queen Elizabeth in Glasgow. This is a hospital emergency department-based intervention where navigators aim to interrupt the cycle of violence. Callum, who I spoke about earlier, mentioned this very positively to me when he said that he was at his lowest point and that he reached out to him there and had made a huge difference to his life. The expansion of that will enable us to reach out to more people who are living chaotic lifestyles. Those are just a few of the areas that have developed over the years and are being driven forward by the efforts of many caring and passionate people. Today, I want to pay tribute to those individuals who make those initiatives what they are, often giving up their own time to help others to turn their lives around. I am aware that the Liberal Democrats had submitted a motion today about the importance of through care in our justice system. While that motion was not accepted, we would have supported it. Without the right support for offenders of violent crime, it is likely that they will go back out onto the streets and re-offend. The cabinet secretary and I would be happy to meet Liam McArthur to discuss those ideas further if he wishes. We know that the underlying causes of violence are deeply rooted within poverty, inequality and toxic masculinity and Scotland's relationship with alcohol. The introduction of the minimum unit pricing is allowing us to take direct action to tackle the provision of high-strength, low-cost alcohol across Scotland. Members may be aware that our alcohol strategy is due to be published in the coming weeks, but we need to understand violence better to affect a further downwards trend. That is why the previous justice secretary, Michael Matheson, commissioned a detailed study to improve our understanding of non-sexual violent crime, and in particular, emerging evidence that violence may be becoming more concentrated on repeat victims and within certain communities. The first part of that research will be published on Tuesday, looking into the characteristics of robberies and then a report into serious assaults will follow in the spring. We will continue to work with partners to further our knowledge about what works to reduce violence and to understand where our focus needs to be in the future. The recent focus on Scotland's approach has certainly been welcome. During the last decade, we have provided the leadership and support to turn Scotland's record on violence around. Yet we know that there are very real challenges ahead. We must look at the new emerging evidence, understand what works, learn from others where we can, break cycles of violence across all of our constituencies and change our nation for the better. Thank you very much, minister. I now call on Liam Kerr to speak to move amendment 13995.1. Mr Kerr, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is common when faced with great problems in public services for us to call for a different approach or that we must do more. This debate today is an important one because the motion rightly acknowledges that in the area of violent crime a different approach was taken and significant progress has been made. However, we must not be complacent, and the amendment in my name, which I hear by move, seeks to guard against that. It is important to acknowledge that Scotland has turned its record on violence around. No longer are we, as reported by the UN in 2005, the most violent country in the developed world, nor is Glasgow the murder capital of Europe, as reported by the World Health Organization in that same year. At least part of that stems from another event that year when a novel approach, as described by Ash Denham, was taken by Glasgow's violence reduction unit. It was one that extrapolated from health to treat the cause rather than the symptom and treated violent behaviour as a disease that spreads from one person to another. At least to some extent it appears to have been successful with homicides and facial trauma patients falling across the country. Therefore, I am pleased to echo the ministers' thanks to the VRU for the work that they do. In particular, I would like to note the navigator programme, which is currently running in Glasgow and Edinburgh. That places professionals in accident and emergency departments to engage and support patients at what are called reachable, teachable moments in order to break the cycle of violence. That is a great initiative. We need to see it expanded, perhaps even beyond what the minister is suggesting. I think that there will also be consensus on the importance of early prevention through education. Again, I echo the ministers bringing up the No Knives Better Lives programme. Last November, I watched the powerful and often harrowing play, Ballysong, run by that programme. Ultimately, that theatre, created by young people, for young people, drives home to the roughly 12,000 who saw it, the very serious consequences of carrying a knife. Presiding Officer, this is only part of the picture. We have much further to go in making Scotland safer and tackling all forms of crime. I know this because when those in power pat themselves on the back as they quote, recorded crime levels, as the definitive measure, they fail to recognise the hidden figures and, crucially, they fail to recognise that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. In an answer yesterday, the cabinet secretary said, I would hope that everyone would look at the data and see where we have had success. But respectfully, this is a flawed argument because raw data doesn't automatically make for a causal link to be made. It stands to reason when you think about it, as was described in the World Economic Forum report. Victims of violence are more likely to go to A&E than they are to go to the police. The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey shows that at least two-thirds of crime is going unreported. The SNP's own crime counting rules mean that violent crime figures don't include assaults, which result in a broken nose or a loss of consciousness. I ask someone who has been knocked out if they have been a victim of a violent crime or not, and I would suggest that the answer is a resounding yes. I want to reinforce that point. Although we all say that recorded crime is at a 43-year low, I accept the member's point that not all crime is recorded. However, we see overall across the different measures—recorded figures, A&E admissions, which the member has just mentioned and the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey—that there is a long-term and sustained decrease of crime. Will the member accept that? I think that what we need to look at is—the answer is no, and I will go on to describe why. If you look at the data that is being recorded, large numbers of violence crime is going unreported, and the data on which the conclusions that are being based on become unreliable. Official statistics will offer us part of the picture, but for A&E to rely on them exclusively is dangerously complacent and dangerously misleading. I will tell you why. Let me address the first point, because I want to do that. Last year's recorded crime publication showed a clear rise in crimes of violence, including homicides, attempted murder, serious assault and robbery. More recent data from Police Scotland confirms that violent sexual and drug-fuelled crimes are increasing from between 7 and 11 per cent in the last year. Crimes involving offensive weapons rose 10 per cent. Police now deal with over 161 domestic violence calls a day, which, of course, adjusts the incidents that they hear about. Most shamefully of all, Presiding Officer, one's chances of being a victim of crime, if you live in one of Scotland's most deprived communities, remain the same as they were 10 years ago. We cannot be complacent on violent crime or, as the Scotland on Sunday put it, we cannot allow a hunger for good news to blunt our critical faculties. Earlier on, you talked about not having the official figures not being the way to do it. The minister got up and told you that you used the example of accident emergency, going to accident emergency instead of the police. The minister got up and told you that the accident emergency figures were going down. You then responded by saying, I, but that does not matter. Can you please explain to us how, what it is exactly that you want, do you want every single instance to be recorded by somebody, I don't know, Robocop or something? First of all, Mr Kerr, you are not going to lose time on that, but also can members remember not to use the U word? I am fed up saying that it is the member. You do not term somebody that, I am the U person sitting in the chair. Mr Kerr. I don't disagree. I accept that hospital admissions for the trauma are down. I accept that and I accept that progress has been made. My point to Mr Dornan is that we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent. That is what I am concerned about from the Government. My further example of that is that, just yesterday, the Minister for Community Safety stood up and stated that the evidence points towards a long-term and sustained reduction in antisocial behaviour. I think that the point has just been reiterated there. Only for Jamie Halcro Johnston to reduce police Scotland management figures, which clearly show that in one year, antisocial behaviour has increased by 25 per cent in parts of his region. The minister was thus forced to concede. The 2017-18 report suggests a slight increase in overall antisocial behaviour. It is a 5 per cent increase, by the way, across 23 local authorities. Our message and the reason behind our amendment is clear. Celebrate the successes, but stop ignoring the reality on the ground. Stop ignoring what police and the experts are saying and start an honest dialogue with the people of Scotland about the difficult decisions that have to be made to reduce violent crime. On which note—I really can't, cabinet secretary—on which note, as Niven Rennie makes clear in Holyrood magazine today, policing alone will not drive reductions in violence, but that is not to say that officers on the ground are not part of the answer. They are. Yet almost every area of Scotland has fewer officers on the front line now than five years ago and more cuts are on the way. Strong community policing is essential to prevention and detection. If the SNP is serious about combating violent crime, it will get officers out of backroom roles and on to the front line, where they can make a difference. We should congratulate and build upon the successes of the violent reduction unit, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that violent crime appears to be increasing and that local police officers are being cut. The SNP has to acknowledge the true level of crime on its watch, and it must put victims first by keeping dangerous offenders off our street. That is what our amendment seeks to reflect, and I commend it to the Parliament. Thank you. I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment 13995.3. Mr Johnson, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I am going to begin my speech by restating some of the facts, but I do not think that I am going to apologise for that because I think that they bear repetition. In 2005, the UN published a report declaring Scotland as the most violent country in the developed world. A week later, WHO figures led Glasgow to being named the murder capital of Europe, which we have heard from other speakers. That translated into 70 killings a year. At that time, more than 1,000 people required treatment for facial trauma alone, many as a result of violent stabbings and beating. Indeed, I recall being told by my cousin, who was working as a junior doctor in A&E in Glasgow, about the realities of her having to learn about knife trauma, and it was harrowing. In that same year, the violence reduction unit was founded. I do not want to spend too long rehearsing the background of the VRU. I think that the minister did an excellent job of setting out the work that it has done. However, I welcome the opportunity to debate this topic, to examine and mark the advances that have been made, but we must also analyse the impact, not just in terms of what has been achieved but also why, looking at the methods that have been used and why they have been successful. Above all else, what is important is that we continue to combat violence in our communities and make progress in terms of reducing the number of people who are victims of violent crime. I believe that there are three key principles why the VRU approach has been successful. First, is analysis, understanding the factors that drive violence. Second, prevention. Once you consider the issue through a public health approach, you understand that violence breeds violence, that it spreads like an epidemic, that violence is a social disease and, in some cases, a social norm. Once you have worked that out, you can treat it. Third, is that cross-agency working is vital. Violence is not something that can be tackled by the police alone. It requires government, social work, employment, courts, prisons, social enterprises, schools and families to all intervene at the appropriate times and places. I think that this approach is something that ought to be copied in other areas of government and, in particular, in drugs. We have spoken recently considerably about our drugs problem in Scotland and the need to treat it more as a health rather than a justice issue, but, ultimately, it is both. Perhaps this model is one that should be copied that analysis, prevention and cross-agency working could be used to tackle Scotland's shameful record on illegal drugs, as both a criminal justice and a health issue. The VRU has been wildly successful. The murder rate in Glasgow has fallen by 60 per cent. Facial trauma numbers have halved. Violent crime is down on every measure on the basis of the 2005 levels. I also want to note yesterday's very welcome announcement by London's mayor, Siddique Cannes, of a commitment to create a London violence reduction unit. I also understand that the West Midlands has taken a similar public health approach. Labour is happy to support the motion that is put forward by the Government today, but, in having the opportunity to debate this topic, we must, yes, focus on progress that is vital, but critique is also fundamental because, as we have incorporated it, we cannot have any ounce of complacency in terms of our approach to this. That is what our amendment seeks to do today. It makes two fundamental points that we hope the Government will acknowledge this evening in the vote, in the spirit of continued consensus and co-operation on this issue. First, we must recognise that the risk of a cross-agency approach is what happens when those other agencies are not fully resourced. The second is that, while long-term trend is clear, the short-term trend is much more worrying. On resources, the Parliament knows well that Labour's criticisms of the cuts to public services over the last decade under the SNP, and particularly those cuts to local government. Local government is a key partner, and the cuts to local government have been stark, and that can only have a negative impact on the ability of the whole system to deliver the reductions in violence. We must also recognise the great work that the third sector organisations do in this area. They are also experiencing huge difficulties and constraints on their budgets, and we should be mindful of the effects that that could have. We often hear terms such as joined-up thinking, co-ordination and early intervention. That can only happen if local government and the third sector are properly and adequately resourced. Does the member welcome the recent investment from the Scottish Government and local authorities to women offending and addressing that issue? I congratulate the Scottish Government when it funds local government adequately and stops year-on-year cuts to its resource grant from central government. We also know that, from official statistics, violent crime has seen a long-term decrease. I acknowledge that, and it should be celebrated. However, more recently, Government statistics are also clear that non-sexual violent crime has shown a 14 per cent increase in the last two years. The clear-up rate and the percentage of those crimes being solved has also fallen to 77 per cent. Those are concerning trends and ones that I raised because I am keen for the Government and for Parliament to not just pat ourselves on the back but to understand that there is much more to do and much more focus on tackling those issues. I think that the member may be rising in order to ask what my position is on their amendment this evening. I am with regret that we will not be supporting the Conservative amendment because of the inaccuracy in it. However, I agree with much of the sentiment that the reality is that, as the violence reduction unit will say to itself, only 43 per cent of violent crimes are reported and that health admissions, as a result of violent acts in our community, are much, much higher than reported crime. Although those statistics are not necessarily outside of international norms, they must be recognised. I understand the sentiments, but because of the inaccuracy, and if I believe in a full, frank and honest discussion, I do not believe that we can vote for an inaccurate amendment. I see the Presiding Officer nodding at me, so I will conclude there. That is not necessarily the debate that I thought we were going to have. I have to be perfectly honest with you. The motion talks about the recognition of Scotland's progress in turning violence around it, and I think that we should applaud that. I really think that we should applaud that and I think that we should express gratitude to the people who have delivered that success. There is no green amendment in it because I do not take offence with anything that is in the Government motion. Substantially, I do not suppose that my Opposition colleagues do either, but what I would say is that recognising success is not the same as assuming that there is perfection. There certainly is not perfection. We have a way to go, and I personally, as someone who is not particularly numerate, cannot juggle the figures all around. It has to be seen over the longer term and I think that it is irrefutable that there is tremendous progress being made. When we know that, we hear from the minister that there are people coming looking for answers, I wish those people every success. I think that it is tremendous that Siddique Cairns is coming here because I think that there are too many young men in London whose lives are being lost and if there is a lesson that can be learnt from Scotland and any life saved, then that to me is real progress. We had a debate in here the other night about UN Peace Day, and I quoted both to Sputters Galle, and I never thought I would find myself doing it. When he was second to general, he was asked to respond to the Security Council about how it would improve peacekeeping and peace enforcement. I think that those are key phrases that we could align with this debate here. In his respond agenda for peace, he came up with the term peace building. That is post-conflict social and political reconstruction activities at preventing a relapse into conflict. What it distinguished from peacekeeping and peace making was the insistence of societal wide reconciliation. I think that that applies to policing, and I think that we would draw the line between proactive policing is very good, enforcement is clearly reactive, but treating this disease in the fact that it recognises being a disease in the way that it has, in the collaborative way that it has, I think, has been very helpful. We have seen some movement in government, and I, for one, welcome the fact that the Government moved the drugs portfolio from justice to health. The labour motion notes success, and we will support the labour motion. Like the minister, I am sorry that we did not, into the debate, had the Lib Den motion been accepted, because I think that there are significant issues there that we need to look at. I am very happy to reflect on the success that is there. There is a way to go on the issue, because, although the drug portfolio has changed, we have the issue of supervised injecting facilities. I would like to say an end to this so-called warren drugs. I think that language is very important, and we tend to use a lot of violent imagery in our language. Thank you, part. No, you have to call your first little technicality, Liam Kerr. I did not disagree up until that point with anything that you said previously, but I will now. Does the member not accept that the contribution that was made by Niven Rennie at the weekend is very important and that, to avoid complacency, we should pick it up in the amendment to the motion today? There is no way— It is the same to you, Mr John Finnie, now. Thank you. I have to earn my keep on you. Indeed. We will not be supporting your motion for the very reasons that Mr Johnson outlined there. You cannot stand up in bandy figures about not being accurate yourself. That is simply not inappropriate. I have the highest regard for Niven Rennie. Indeed, he is a predecessor, Mr Kerr, and I think that there has been a very positive contribution made by the violence reduction unit and the reality is that Mr Rennie will contribute to that. No doubt building on his many, many years of experience. I think that there can be a legislative spot in relation to drugs and the violence that has been associated with that. Unfortunately, it is not in the gift of this particular building here at this time. I want to talk about domestic violence because there have been huge strides taken in respect of that. I think that the approach that has been taken has been—I think that already the term navigators has been mentioned a number of times—a very positive step. We also heard from the minister about various initiatives. I think that, with frequency, we all can commend the work of women's aid in rape crisis Scotland. It is about the structures that are in place to support. It is not simply always about money, but it is about the structure. There are specialist police units and specialist units in the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. There are decisions that are taken about policy, about fast-tracking, specialist courts and something that I will keep coming back to, and that is judicial training, because there still is ignorance—I am afraid—abounding on the bench on occasions, which is hopefully a reducing number of times. The legislation that deals with the treatment of complainers, witnesses and domestic abuse is all things that will encourage people to come forward if they have confidence in the system. Yes, we have a way to go. One violence that has been recognised in legislation and there was fascinating work to do on the justice committee was the coercive and controlling behaviour and the psychological violence that we see. Indeed, the work of the violence reduction unit in workplace bullying and bullying in the school there and the violence that we see there are visited through technology nowadays. It is important that there is support for children, recognising the important problem that comes with the exposure to violence, exposure to the disease of violence. Someone said to me in relation to my member's bill, which will be discussed here in coming months, that that is the last acceptable form of domestic violence. One thing that was in support of the legislation, which enjoys the support of police officers, social workers, paediatricians and many other organisations, is that there are no studies showing that children's behaviour improves as a result of physical punishment and most show that there has been a negative impact on a child's long-term wellbeing. There are lessons about violence and lessons about what we learn from it. We can all learn and there is no one more than me on that particular issue who knows what you can learn. I think that the role of alcohol is in part being arrested. Can I just conclude by saying that early intervention, the support that the third sector provides is vital and it is important that we support them? I think that it is the first opportunity to do so. I welcome Mash Damon to her new post. I congratulate her on the tone of her opening remarks and certainly indicate my willingness to take up the offer. She is extended in terms of further discussions around the issue of through care. A little like John Finnie, I saw this as an opportunity to put on record my thanks to the police and the range of public and third sector organisations in health, education, social work and elsewhere who have played a part in achieving an impressive reduction in violence that we have seen in Glasgow. Niven Rennie is correct. Of course, when he cautions against seeing the reduction in violence to a level that would suggest that we have cracked it, too many communities across the country still endure unacceptable levels of violence in A and E departments, as Mr Rennie warns us, continue to deal with far higher numbers of serious assaults than those reported to the police. That is clearly a powerful argument against any sense of complacency, but it is not, however, a reason not to acknowledge and celebrate the progress that has been made by the VRU. Progress achieved in large partners, as I have said, by adopting an innovative approach that views violence as a public health issue, requiring treatment as we would a disease, such as being the success of the approach that we have seen the mayor of London City can announcing his intention to adopt a similar model in that city. Certainly, the recent escalation in violence in communities across London has been alarming, characterised very often by tit-for-tat attacks that bear all the hallmarks of a contagion. In that respect, hopefully the VRU approach will prove as successful in London as it has patently been in Glasgow. In the Scottish context, where do we go from here? How do we build on the success of what the VRU has achieved to date? Is it realistic to think that we will ever get to the point where, in Nivenrenny's words, we can say that we have cracked it? The motion, while setting out future priorities, is less clear about the actions that will accompany those actions. Addressing underlying causes such as poverty or inequality in factors to do with attitude of behaviour, takes time. Short cuts, while superficially appealing in order to allay public anxieties, are unlikely ever to be truly effective and deliver lasting improvement. The VRU has shown that the holistic approach that structures do work. This is a lesson that can be carried through to other areas of our criminal justice system. One area where Scottish Liberal Democrats believe there is more we can be doing and which would deliver real benefits in reducing the risk of violence and other types of offending behaviour is in relation to support that provides those emerging from the prison system. Clearly extending the presumption against ineffective short-term prison sentences in the first place is important. The Government must, I believe, press ahead with introducing it as quickly as possible. For those in our prison system, more can and should be done. Making the provision of through care more widely available, not just limiting statutory provision to prisoners serving four years or more, would be a good start. It would also be consistent with the principles underlying the success of the VRU. A recent HMIPS report confirmed that, but overall found that, quote, there are lengthy waiting lists for many key programmes and that, quote, prisoners are at risk of being released into the community without having completed treatment programmes designed to reduce future re-offending. That is disappointing and shows that we can and must do better. Providing support to individuals while they are in prison helps to break the vicious cycle of recidivism. That includes support with issues such as finding housing, substance misuse, education, money management and ensuring continuity in the support then, after release, is essential and must be seamless. As the VRU shows, co-ordination is able to deliver real benefits—benefits for the individual, benefits for the community and benefits for wider society. However, as it stands, those benefits are not being fully realised. In May this year, David Strang said, I have seen too often people leaving prison with approximately £75 in their pocket and with the prospect of having to wait several weeks before being eligible for basic benefits. Many end up homeless, he added, with a clear consequential risk of them reverting to re-offending behaviour, keeping their own company and, in many cases, ultimately, violence. The success of the VRU relies on accepting the need to take a longer-term perspective. Based on David Strang's account, the same cannot yet be said for how our courts and prisons treat violent offenders. I accept that delivering proper through care across the prison population is likely to be costly, but all the evidence shows that failing to do so is considerably more costly. For those across the public and third sectors who have contributed to the success of the VRU and many more who are working hard to reduce the violence that blights too many of our communities still, we owe it to them to be bold. Enabling the expansion of good quality through care in prisons in communities across the country is one way of demonstrating that boldness of ambition. Before I move on to the open debate, because of the limits of our technology, if you intervene, your request-to-speak button goes off. Perhaps we can overcome that, surely, if we can send people into space so that we can get buttons to come back on, just because you intervene. I will leave that where it is, but there you are. Remember that. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Michelle Ballantyne. Before I start, I want to associate myself with the comments from Liam McArthur about through care. I have not touched on it in my speech, but I really do agree with them on all points and much of what John Finnie said as well. Much of what I am about to say has actually been said in the opening speeches, but I believe that it is worth repeating, because it is a success story. The overall picture shows that Scotland has made great progress in reducing violence and there has been a sustained long-term reduction in violent crime in Scotland over the last decade. I believe that this is the result of the Scottish Government adopting a public health approach to tackling violence, as advocated by the World Health Organization. The emphasis is on prevention activity, such as education and early intervention, which we know always works, partnership working with the NHS, local authorities, community groups and appropriate law enforcement as necessary. By continuing to tackle the causes of violence, not just the symptoms, we have broken down the relentless cycle of violence and reduced the terrible impact that it has had on individuals, families and communities. I was born in Glasgow, a city that was once known as No Mean City. As we have heard, it was described as the murder capital of Europe by the World Health Organization in 2005 due to gang violence and its aggressive reputation. Thankfully, we all know that that is no longer the case due to the progress that has been made, which has seen Glasgow's murder rate drop by 60 per cent. Even the World Economic Forum praised Scotland's effort in reducing violence with a new approach, saying that violent crime in Scotland decreased by 49 per cent, almost half in the last decade. The Scottish Government is fully committed to preventing and reducing violence, investing more than £14 million in violence prevention measures and programmes since 2008. A key part of the Government's work to tackle violence, as we have heard, is through the Police Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, SVRU, which is a renowned national centre of expertise in violence. It aims to reduce violent crime and behaviour by working with partner agencies to achieve long-term societal and attitudinal changes and by focusing on enforcement to contain and manage individuals who carry weapons or are involved in violent behaviour. The SVRU began as the violent reduction unit, established by Strathclyde Police in 2005, to target all forms of violent behaviour, in particular knife, crime and weapon carrying among young men in and around Glasgow. Following the success of the SVRU, the programme was extended nationwide, and the SVRU has been funded by the Government since 2008 to the tune of £12 million. Liam Kerr, Thank you for the intervention. Does the member not share my concern that so little is being done to reduce violent crime in the most deprived areas, such that there is a victimisation rate that remains fundamentally unchanged for a decade? Rona Mackay. I am just not sure how you can evidence that so little has been done in the less deprived areas. I do not know where that is coming from. A lot of focus has been on the deprived areas. Similar programmes exist around the world but are not delivered through the police. Violent reduction programmes in Chicago operate through the university, for example, while similar programmes in New York and Baltimore are administered through the city's health departments. The SVRU team is a mixture of researchers, police officers, civilian staff and former offenders who have turned their lives around and are now succeeding in helping others to do the same. Its early pioneers, John Carnahan and Karen McCluskey, will, I believe, go down in history as being instrumental in eradicating the unacceptably high levels of violence in Scotland. They had a monumental task of making a difference and they did by offering hope to so many disengaged and disadvantaged young people. They offered them hope and that was what they needed to turn their lives around. The SVRU introduced the Mentors in Violence Prevention programme after seeing its success in America, again learning from good practice. MPV trains students the skills to safely intervene and prevent violence in Scotland. As the minister said, we learned only this week that Scotland's approach to tackling violence has been adopted by other areas of the UK. London's mayor, Sadiq Kahn, has already been incorporating elements of the public health approach in his knife crime strategy, and a violent reduction unit has been set up in a similar model to our own. Earlier this month, I held an event in Parliament to highlight the work of Professor Ross Duker, assistant dean of the University of the West of Scotland, who is researching a radical new approach to rehabilitating and healing violent offenders in Denmark. Professor Duker is a Scottish criminologist, known primarily for his work on gangs, masculinity, street culture, violence and gang assistance, as well as policing procedural justice and focused deterrent strategies. He is also the author of a new book called Gangs and Spirituality. His work has spanned across three continents of the world, having worked with the most marginalised gang members on the streets, youth clubs and in secure accommodation and prisons. The event in Parliament focused on groundbreaking new work on the healing effect of yoga, meditation and breathing to prevent offending, with members of the Danish breathe smart programme demonstrating the technique. To say that the event was fascinating was an understatement. We heard from Jerry Rasmussen, a self-confessed former violent criminal, whose life has been turned round by this practice. He was lost, had a high aces count and had only known a life of violence and criminality, but through the patience of the breathe smart team, he started to live again. It was emotional and uplifting to see the real man behind the formerly macho defensive and desperately unhappy offender he once was. To use a cliché, it restored my faith in human nature and reinforced my view that we can and we must find alternatives to reducing violent behaviour and reoffending, an organisation called the art of living provides classes and programmes to individuals and organisations throughout the UK. Their vision is a stress-free, violence-free world and who wouldn't want this? In conclusion, I am proud that Scotland is at the forefront of tackling violence. Of course, we must never get complacent and there will always be work to do, but we have come a long way since the days of No Mean City. I want to start today by welcoming and acknowledging the improvements that we have seen in Scotland since the rather damning report by the United Nations in 2005 that declared Scotland as the most violent country in the developed world. According to the University of California, Scotland at that time, we had a higher violent death rate than in America. Those reports, as we have heard, came after the World Health Organization had already revealed in 2002 that 34.1 per cent of males had carried weapons at least once during their lifetime. Clearly, that is not a description of Scotland that any of us ever want to see again. In last week's child poverty debate, I highlighted the principle that we cannot just battle with the symptoms of an issue, we have to deal with it at the root. Today's debate highlights an excellent example of doing just that. I want to add my congratulations and welcome the incredibly impressive results that the violence reduction unit has achieved. Part of the reason I want to talk about that is some of what Daniel Johnson mentioned, because I love the description of the approach that the VRU took addressing the problem like a disease, first by diagnosing the problem, then analysing the causes, examining what works and for whom, and finally developing the solutions that once evaluated could be scaled up to help others. I think that it is brilliant that Scotland is able to have gone out there and genuinely starting to help others, and it trusts me no end that London is coming to us for help. That is something to be really celebrated, but I think perhaps most importantly with the VRU, they weren't seeking a quick fix. They wanted to change society's attitude towards violence and bring that partnership working between police, health education and social work, and they don't mention the third sector on the front of their website, but I'm sure they're there, and that's what makes it possible. It's often that long-term attitudinal change in society that are missed when actions and policies are tied to short-term funding solutions, and I've experienced that myself. Often funding ends for effective projects simply because funders are seeking new exciting ideas, so I am pleased that more than a decade on, from the formation of the VRU, that they're still going strongly and are still continuing to roll out the principles on which they started out their work. I was also extremely impressed that they're the only police members of the World Health Organization's Violence Prevention Alliance. It is changing the attitude towards it just being something that is enforcement and really thinking about it as something that is embedded in society that we need to address. The Scottish Government is quite right to highlight the success, and I'm very happy to have my voice to welcoming this. Here comes the but, there's always a however, isn't there? My colleague Liam Kerr and others have identified that in celebrating success and welcoming all this, we mustn't be complacent and we mustn't take our eye off the ball. While we are keen to stress that nationally crime rates are falling and things are improving, it isn't always the whole story, and we've heard Niven Renny quoted a few times, and he has said there is still too much violence, and A&E departments are dealing with far higher numbers of serious assaults than those are reported to replace. I had a look at what's going on in some of the areas in the south of Scotland, and in my own region there are some worrying trends underlying the national figures. Figures from the past year in the borders show that there's been a 13% increase in recorded crime alone. We've seen a 20% increase in sex offences, a 17% increase in housebreaking, and other offences, including weapons and drugs, have risen by 29%. I thank the member for doing so, and I think that it's been a very thoughtful contribution from Michelle Ballantyne. I thank her for that. I'm just cautioning about using the word trend when we're using one-year figures, because the downward trend has been a downward trend throughout the decade. I think that just using one-year figures can be a danger, so I just caution about that. Michelle Ballantyne. I'm quite happy to accept that, but I think that there's a concern when they suddenly start rising again. I think that that's something that we need to be looking at. I accept that the overall trend is down, and I'm not disputing that. I have to say that some progress is being made this year in the Scottish Borders. The current council, the Conservative and independent-led council, is using some of its budget again to support a community action policing team, and that's having some very positive effects. However, I would question whether it's right that our local councils are contributing to policing on our streets, and again, maybe that's something that we should be thinking about. Fully enough, when I turn to Midlothian—I hope that the Deputy Presiding Officer will forgive me for this—in a recent issue of the Midlothian advertiser, she has self-quoted that crime is at the lowest for over 40 years, quite correct, and quotes that it proves that the SNP's approach to issues such as knife crime is paying dividends for our communities, nationally, quite correct. Unfortunately, again, in Midlothian, overall crime has risen by 12%. One of the biggest rises in crime of any local authority in Scotland. The local area commander, chief inspector Kenny Simpson, is regularly raising the subject of antisocial behaviour in the same paper, and he felt compelled to write an article entitled, number of youths armed with weapons is cause for concern, in which he referenced a recent spike in vandalism. I would caution in the same way that national figures can sometimes hide local issues, so in welcoming improvements we must also be willing to acknowledge what we still need to tackle. There are still issues that concern myself and members of the public, and we've visited some of those debates here around a soft-touch approach, early release dates for offenders or fewer front-line officers. Overall, I welcome and congratulate everyone who has contributed to the positive national trend, but there is still work to do. Thank you for the name check. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate. I will start by declaring an interest as a registered social worker with the Scottish Social Services Council. I spent four years prior to my election working on the criminal justice field. As you will imagine, I was pleased when I heard that the World Economic Forum had recognised Scotland's progress in reducing violence and the complete overhaul of our record and approach. Crime in Scotland, as others have said, has decreased significantly since 2006-07 and in no small part thanks to the violence reduction unit that was founded in 2005. As others have said, the figures are very stark between April 2006 and April 2011. In Scotland, 40 children and teenagers were killed in homicides involving a knife. Between 2011 and 2016, the figure fell to eight. However, let me be very clear that every death is unacceptable, and that is still eight too many. To put Liam's mind at ease, there has by no means been complacent. In Glasgow, the figure between the same 2011 and 2016 period was none. That is where we need to get to for the whole country, but it is clear that the plan in progress is working. To people like myself who have worked in this area, that is a pleasing but not surprising start. I know first-hand the great work done by all the agencies in the criminal justice system, the work that is helping to rehabilitate those who have served a custodial sentence, the change, now Caledonia programme, who work with those who commit domestic violence offences, substance misuse and addiction programmes, youth justice approaches—the list really does go on. I would dispute Neil Findlay's assertions about public services not having the money to do so because it is not what I see and what I experienced myself. I could literally spend the whole six minutes just listing various services, public and third sector, but of course I am not going to do that. However, I think that it is only right that I pay tribute to all those who work across the sector, including my old colleagues, who I know do a fine job in challenging circumstances. However, at the core of our approach, it is a welfare and human rights-based model. That is why we have social workers carrying out much of the intervention work and not parole officers, as is the case in England. As we know and as has been said, violence is a complex issue that comes in many forms. It is also clear that there is a strong link between poverty, adverse childhood experiences and violent crime. There is also a well-documented and strong and complex interplay between unemployment, homelessness, mental health and addiction issues and offending in violence. Therefore, I am a staunch believer that we should be focusing on the causes of violence. That is why it needs to be said, and it needs to be said clearly, that those Tory welfare and austerity cuts are plunging our children and vulnerable people into dire poverty and hunger and will only limit the chances of our youngsters and increase the likelihood of violent offending. We should all in this chamber, every single party, be applauding the Scottish Government in reversing this trend in the face of those inhumane policies, with, for example, cash back for communities and other initiatives. No, not just now. If I get time later, since 2008, the Scottish Government has invested £14 million in violence prevention measures. A key part of the Scottish Government's work to tackle violence is, of course, through the well-mentioned Scottish Police Violence Reduction Unit. The SVRU was set up with the aim of reducing violent crimes and behaviours by working in conjunction with partner agencies to achieve long-term societal and attitudinal change. It is clear that also focusing on enforcement to contain and manning individuals who carry weapons or who involve them in violent behaviour is essential, and the SVRU is now internationally recognised. There are some really good national policies, also like the presumption against the short-term sentence, which is absolutely vital if we are serious about reducing re-offending. There is, of course, the debate on remand, which will be brought to this chamber in a couple of weeks following the Justice Committee inquiry, and I look forward to taking part in that. However, of course, there needs to be a scope for local interventions. We heard how in Glasgow gang culture has been challenged in helping to reduce violent crime. In my own area of Coatbridge and Chrystian, yes, statistics are looking very good, and the national reduction of violent crime is certainly reflected, but with no means ready to celebrate just yet. There are significant issues with mental health and officers' report, routinely being the first port of call for someone who needs this treatment. There are also major issues with drugs, with statistics for Lanarkshire regularly making the local news, but I want to finish by focusing on alcohol and its link to violent crime in my part of the world. Just a couple of weeks ago, the local paper, the advertiser, released short figures that more people were admitted to Muntlands A and E for alcohol-related harm than any other hospital in the area, 1,800 patients since 2015. That is perhaps not surprising that an area devastated by years of deindustrialisation, Tory policies and unemployment resulting in generational unemployment, crime and poor health outcomes. Most people in the chamber will have heard of Buckfast tonic wine or commonly referred to as bucky, a high-volume alcoholic drink associated mainly with Coatbridge and Airdrie. I won't fight with my colleague Alex Neil over it, but also with most of the other Lanarkshire towns. Indeed, most towns will have a rival over who is the Buckfast capital. In reality, this is not a new issue or not something to be mocked or scorned at. I found some really startling figures between 2008 and 2012. Buckfast was mentioned in an average of 2,893 crime reports per year by Strathclyde Police. That works out at a number just under eight a day. I can also back that up by my own reflection over crime reports when I was working in the sector. It is not an alcohol product that is subject to minimum pricing. That is not a coincidence. Of course, there is a link between alcohol issues and violent crime, but there is clearly a problem with that particular choice. One of the main problems is made of glass. In accounts of violent incidents, bottles appear to be more frequently used, weapon than any other, making Buckfast not only a precursor to violent behaviour and crime, but a tool that is readily available to use. I am joining a long list of politicians calling on the company to consider other materials for the bottles. A survey conducted at Polmont Young Offenders in 2007 has striking results. If those had been drunk at the time of their crime, 43 per cent had been drinking Buckfast. It is clear that a link, albeit that it starts, does not fill up the date. I will finish by saying that the statistics are very good. They are not surprising to me. There is a lot of good working on in the area. I commend the Scottish Government for the work that they are doing in this area, but as everybody said, I would like the ministers to understand that there is more work to be done. Ruth Maguire, to be followed by Neil Findlay. If I could start by joining my colleague Rona Mackay and associating myself with Liam MacArthur's comments around through care, unless we can get that right for predominantly men leaving prison, then we are setting them up to fail and it is not going to help anybody. Violence is a complex issue that comes in many forms beyond the obvious health problems that result from violence. Beyond the psychological trauma and the physical injuries, violent behaviour in itself is an epidemic that spreads from person to person. To break cycles of violence and reduce the harm done to individuals, their families and communities, we must tackle the causes and not just the symptoms of violence. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to this approach and, in particular, the work of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, which has been recognised internationally as being at the forefront of Scotland's approach to preventing violence. The unit team is a mixture of researchers, police officers, civilian staff and former offenders. Their remit is to tackle violence in all its forms, from gang fighting to domestic abuse and bullying in schools in the workplace. It has had many successes, which is reflected in the announcement on Wednesday that London will echo Scotland's approach to violence and treat it as a public health issue. The public health approach, as advocated by the World Health Organization and adopted by the Scottish Government, is effective. Prevention activity such as early education and early intervention, alongside appropriate law enforcement, is essential. Crime in Scotland has decreased and most people feel safe in our communities. However, I think that in celebrating successes in tackling violence and crime, we also have a duty to hear and act on some of the less comfortable facts. John Carnach tells us that crime figures are only a small measure and not a great one at that, of levels of violence. In Scotland, we found only one-third to one-half of people in accident and emergency as a result of violence reported to the police. The ones that had not reported to us had resolved to deal with the matter themselves, which led to more violence. With that in mind, I would like to pick up on a particular strand of work from the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, which is based in hospitals. I was really pleased and delighted to learn in the programme for government that the navigator project was being extended and that navigators will shortly be starting work in Crosshouse Hospital, which serves my constituency. The aim of the navigator project is to break the cycle of violence for the individual and ease the pressure that violence places on the NHS, to stop the revolving door of violent injury in our hospitals by identifying and supporting people within emergency departments' rewards at the point and time of need. They do that by talking to patients who have been affected by violence and then using a wide range of contacts, services and resources outside the emergency room to offer help and support to those patients to change their lives. Commenting on the work of Donna Maguire, a senior emergency department consultant, says, that this is possibly the most valuable non-medical change in the management of A&E in the whole course of my career. I think that for inner city hospitals, this should be a standard means of engaging with the homeless and disenfranchised people that we have coming to our departments. The reason I say this is because the current mechanisms are failing or the people are not engaging with them, whereas here we are getting the navigators catching people at a time when they are amenable to some intervention. I was also struck by the comments of those currently working as navigators when I asked the best and worst part of their job. Sam Fingland said that the best bit was probably seeing the changes that people make themselves. She says that she is just there to ignite a little spark, that it is rewarding work. The job does exactly what it says it will do and just helps people to navigate and make changes. Tam is also a navigator. He says that the best bit is the outcomes and he thinks that most navigators would say the same. It is what gives her the energy to come back weekend after weekend, seeing that little bit of positivity in a person's life that was not there before. We are not superheroes, we are just helping people to save themselves by giving them hope, energy and self-belief. He says that the most difficult part is that you sometimes end up wanting to change more than they do at that particular point in time. Maybe they have not fallen hard enough yet or they are just not ready for it. He says that it is difficult but we have to remain positive and at some point when they are ready they will get back to us. I said in opening that violence is a complex issue and it is, but it is not inevitable and tackling it is all of our business. I would like to commend all of those involved in that really important work, particularly those on the front line who are kindly, compassionately and tenaciously refusing to give up on those that society finds all too easy to ignore. I would say to them to keep up the good work and never ever stop challenging and pushing those of us who could be described as being in the most corrosive gangs of all because Scotland has made great progress but as long as anyone suffers something that is not inevitable, as long as even one person is suffering from violence, we still have a power of work to do. Recently, I have spoken to a number of people on the front line, whether it be prisoners or drug users, councillors, medical staff or police officers. They paint a very realistic and sobering picture of what is going on in our communities. Of course, all of us welcome any reduction in crime but the repeated chotting out of figures telling us that crime is at an all-time low level and the like has little relevance to people whose lives are impacted by crime, violence, drugs and other social manifestations of an increasingly divided society. I will get it out of the way quickly. James Dornan but more manners would be very helpful. The whole point that I was going to say was that would you not accept that those who before would have been affected by violence and are not being affected by violence see the benefit of the serious drop in crime? Can I say first of all please that you should always speak through the chair? I would say secondly that we should always be polite to fellow members and it is for me to decide whether something is impolite or otherwise. Neil Findlay I said that we welcome that absolutely. Anybody who lives in a community where there is violence welcomes the fact that things are happening that reduces that violence. Of course that is the case but crime and violence are a condition of the society and economy that we are living in and only by treating it as that ill that people have spoken about have we begun to make progress. That was the philosophy behind the then Labour-led coalition established in the violence reduction unit in the first place. There was a recognition that poverty and hopelessness and the impact of deindustrialisation had created the conditions for crime and anti-social behaviour and violence to flourish and only by addressing those deep-seated problems and affected communities could we possibly deal with the often violent manifestation of them. Where once there was reliable employment, secure housing and cohesive communities, people have been left in precarious jobs, scarce or unaffordable homes and public services and apparently permanent contraction and in many areas drugs have taken hold destabilising communities and setting individuals on paths of self-destruction. The combination of an ideological obsession with austerity and spending cuts feeds division and alienation and frustration and powerlessness and it is unsurprising that some young people look at their future and compare it to that of their peers and think that there is another easier way out through drug use or dealing with organised crime theft or other criminal activity, which is often the gateway to violent conflict. I think that we have to look way beyond that. Public services are absolutely the key, they are the glue that holds our society together. If we cut youth work, if we have a mental health crisis, if we cut cash going to drug and alcohol projects, if we see social workers drowning in casework, if we see the educational divide widen, if we condition young workers to expect no more than a low-paid precarious job, and if we leave communities in a state of decline and sugar shoulders saying that it is just a consequence of austerity, then we have not a chance of reversing the situation. The decision by the Scottish Labour to treat violent crime as a public health issue was the right one. We need to apply that to other areas of society, too, and in particular, drugs policy. Daniel Johnson mentioned that the violence reduction unit was set up as a result of 70 deaths a year through violence. We have got 1,000 deaths a year through drugs, 14 times as much. Where is the national emergency in this? That is a crisis and we are doing very little about it. If we think that we can arrest our way to a drug or crime-free society, we are seriously deluded. We need to invest in local services in projects such as the Vau project and Edinburgh and the Lothians, which works along with Aiden Abett, a charitable organisation. It has been reducing violent offending by encouraging vendors to address their behaviour and engage with mentoring services. Support workers from Aiden Abett are ex-offenders, including my constituents, the inspirational Kevin Neary and Donald Tomolovitch. They spoke in Parliament at an event that I organised earlier this year. They have reduced offending by more than 80 per cent among the client group that they work with. They have an uptake of almost 50 per cent. It is a strategy that accepts that we can reduce crime and get people back on the road to recovery more quickly and effectively by working with them rather than against them. There is clear evidence that it is working. It has saved £7 million during the time of that project, and yet it exists on a shoestring. It is having to get lottery funding to keep it going. There is no certainty of it continuing. It should not be under constant threat. It should be rolled out across the country. I urge the cabinet secretary if he will agree to meet with me and representatives of Vau and Aiden Abett so that we can look at how we can not just secure the funding for the project, but how we can get projects like that to roll out all across the country. Those schemes make moral, political and financial sense. Our aim should be to create long-term attitudinal change rather than any quick fix. I spoke about drugs policy. I will continue to speak about it because we have a national crisis on our hands. If having the highest number of drugs deaths in Europe does not qualify as a public health emergency, then I surely do not know what it does. The reasons behind the debate fill me with no complacency but a great sense of pride in what Scotland has achieved over the past decade and a half. I will tell you why, because I suspect that I am the only speaker in the debate that has lived through being a teenager in the 60s and 70s where I was blessed by listening to the best music and watching the best football team of all time, but the one blight for most teenage boys back then was the threat of violence. Never a week went past without hearing of a friend, schoolmate, colleague or even a family member being a victim of a random attack or being caught in the wrong place when two gangs were fighting or coming home from football. To see Glasgow going from that Europe's murder capital to a place where the World Economic Forum can congratulate us on a huge decrease in murders and violence gives me great hope for the future. Random violence, murder, serious assaults and other offences still occur, of course they do, but we have come such a long way from the days when the surgeons in Johannesburg were recognised as the finest gunshot surgeons in the world and the surgeons of the royal infirmary, the finest at dealing with stab wounds in the world. How do we get here? If you go to the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit website, it welcomes you with this phrase, violence is preventable, not inevitable. Those words are important to me. As I look back over my younger years, I cannot help but wonder how many young men and women were written off as a life of violence, both perpetrated by and against them, was seen as inevitable. Society just expected certain behaviours of young people from certain areas to develop because they were caught in a cycle and that was just how it was. Of course, even back then there were organisations that worked to deflect young men from this path of destruction and they too should be remembered for their good works. However, it was only when the VRU took an example from Boston and decided to approach this culture of macho violence differently that there began to be real strides in getting these men to see that there was another way, and I congratulate the Labour coalition on bringing that in at the time. It took guidance time and a better understanding of the many whys behind violent behaviour before the problem could be faced head on. Experts now recognise that they are complex and varied reasons as to why a person may have violent tendencies, and that is why the SVRU is due to all the praise that has been heaped upon them, not only in the report in this chamber today. When Scotland becomes an independent country and we are banding names about for this statue or some other form of public recognition for people who have helped to make Scotland the modern, welcoming, peaceful society that has become, two names at the very top of my list will be John Carnahan and Karen McCluskey. Without their drive and vision, I doubt very much we would be having this debate today. In case I forget later on, can I just say how pleased I am that Niven Rennie is now the person in charge of the SVRU? I can think of no one better. The great thing about the VRU was that they knew that it could not be done by the police alone, so the multi-pronged public health approach was adopted. I was absolutely fascinated to read some of the other tax that they used when they involved people like hairdressers, dentists, firemen and vets to identify if a person was a victim. We must congratulate also the Scottish Government on their continued support for the SVRU, without which I doubt we would be able to continue as it does today. I know that I have been concentrating on mainly male to male youth violence, but the reason for that is simple. It is still, by far, the most likely type of random violence to occur. However, we should not forget that other types of devastating violence can manifest in many forms sexual, physical and emotional abuse. It is a multifaceted problem that can only be tackled with a rounded and inter-organisational approach. In my constituency alone, there is some amazing work being done with projects such as the Casimal Youth Complex, a project that is uniquely run for young people and by young people. The project takes young people off the streets and puts them into community art programmes. It seeks to find their own unique talents and gifts and encourages them to be used in a fantastic way through theatre and music. The Southside Boxing Club, which trains in Mount Florida, has more than 100 members keeping them off the streets again and giving them a sense of self-worth that many of them may lack. There is also amazing work being done by the Waves and Daisy projects, which seek to support all women fleeing the horrific crime of domestic abuse. The Waves and Daisy projects provide more than a refuge to provide information and support in order for broken women and children to be able to rebuild a life. Every year in June, a group, also in Casimal, called Lost Lives, invite the community to take part in a memorial garden. The garden is a wall of flowers placed by friends and families who have lost a loved one due to violent crime, abuse or other horrendous circumstances throughout the years. This summer, my staff and I took our time to read the many cards placed along with hundreds of flowers that were memories of brothers, sons, husbands, fathers, sisters, daughters and friends—not one more or less tragic than the next. I wish I could show this chamber the photos of that garden I have lost, because that alone would remind each and every one of us why we must continue in our fight to reduce violent crime. I would agree again with Neil Finlay to reduce the use of drugs and encourage future generations to follow a different path and to also support the Scottish Violent Reduction Unit's motto and declare that violence really is preventable and not inevitable. I too welcome Ash Denham to a new post and I hope it all goes well for you. We are here today to discuss how further reductions in the most harmful crimes can be secured. Vanas in Scotland is undoubtedly a real concern for the people that we represent. We cannot afford to deny the threat of violent crime in our communities, especially if it is not dealt with openly and effectively. I welcome this opportunity to debate the ways in which violence reduction measures can progress and achieve success in Scotland's future. I recognise that some crucial progress has been made by the Violent Reduction Unit. The original aim of this unit was to target the worsening levels of violence in Glasgow. Its remit has spread to include the entirety of Scotland with a goal to tackle all forms of violence. That includes bullying in the workplace and in schools, domestic abuse and gang fighting. The Violent Reduction Unit works closely with groups in health, social work and education to create ways in which the causes of violence and solutions to the problem can be developed. We can see the efforts that are made by the Violent Reduction Unit and I welcome its contribution in lowering crime in Scotland. Indeed, its public health approach to violence has arguably halved the number of facial traumas patients in Glasgow's hospitals and reduced the murder rate in the city by 60 per cent. Yet, while the Scottish Government has hailed that as a complete success, we must recognise that the problem of violence in Scotland has in no way disappeared. Official statistics do not include the innumerable instances of unrecorded violent crime, which surveys and health data have shown and are much higher than what the Government has claimed. As Niven Rennie has made clear recently, for a progressive society, there is still too much violence. We note that the VRU has since issued a clarification on the headline figure used in that report, but the fundamental point remains that the figures being issued by the SNP in press releases remain unfortunately inaccurate. Indeed, the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey has estimated that only 37 per cent of crimes were reported to the police in 2016-17. That means that we do not have a true picture of crime rates in Scotland and therefore how to tackle the problem effectively. It is undeniable that violent crime is unfortunately still an issue in Scotland. It represents around a third of all crimes with an estimated 231,000 violent crimes affecting adults in Scotland last year. Warringly, from 2014-17, the number of violent crimes increased by 45,000. That is a special alarming discovery when we discover that the cuts have been made in the police force of Scotland. By restricting our policing, the safety of our communities will fail to take seriously. Surely, that has contributed towards the rise in street robberies and the number of criminals who are gaining confidence in their belief that they will be caught. We will be not caught, but I will take an intervention. Hamzae Y Llywydd, I thank the member for the intervention. Can I remind the member that the number of police up by 938 might be inherited? If he thinks that we are not doing enough for policing, what does he make of the Tory Government under which, of course, it has fallen by 13 per cent by 19,588 officers in England and Wales? Maurice Corry, I mean the fact is that the SNP made it their flagship policy to protect police numbers and to support them and actually to provide more support on various programmes, so they can't deny that they haven't done that, but actually that needs to be put in place and therefore more useful effective use of the police is there. There are other issues that they can come to later on which will reinforce that. Falling police numbers have also meant that the threat of gang crime will become harder to target. That rise in the number of gangs is becoming alarming by their increased use of firearms and violence. Therefore, we need to see more community police officers in our communities where local knowledge is paramount, and that refers to my point, which I made to the cabinet secretary already. Violence continues to be a problem in our communities, so the Government must admit the accurate state of crime in Scotland. The Violence Reduction Unit has raised the issue of continued violence and warned against ignoring unrecorded statistics. Without a governmental recognition of the rise in violent offences, the work of the VRU cannot reach the full potential of its excellent service that it can offer. In order for the Government to take significant steps forward in violence reduction, the unrecorded rate of violent crime must be taken into account, and the crimes such as attempted murder and serious assaults are too common for the Government to become complacent, rather than finding ways in which they can be actively reduced, particularly to reduce the re-offending rate. As I have seen as I have gone round the prisons in my role, the Government must expand such successful projects. Here I give praise as a prisoner support programme that has been introduced in some prisons in Scotland, particularly in Lomoth, and that has been successful. Therefore, I would encourage the Government to look more at that programme. It is my belief that preventative measures should be in place from the start. In this way, the issue of violence can be tackled before it is time to develop and worsen, and surely one area of prevention that needs more focus is education. We know that more children are being excluded from school for using knives and makeshift weapons, and those instances of first-time offences can easily lead to more serious crimes such as drug-taking, violent and sexual assault that are all on the rise of Scotland. For this reason, a great effort must be made to ensure that primary school pupils are taught the dangers of violence and its consequences as a result. I note that no knives, better lives initiative has aimed to deliver training in schools to deter young people from carrying knives, yet more funding is needed to raise awareness in schools across the private areas of Scotland and to support more initiatives such as this. That will help to ensure that young people are dissuaded from becoming perpetrators in the future and that it will also lessen the potential for victims of violence that are more likely to affect younger adults. Therefore, a greater commitment in education for young people is needed on the seriousness of violent crime that should be a fundamental property. I would also like to add that it is amply demonstrated in the creation of Police Scotland's young volunteers organisation that I saw the other day here in the Parliament, and I congratulate them on doing that. That is another way of making it work, so some praise there. In connection with that, I believe more to come to a close, please. We will go a long way to lessen the potential for violent crime. Surely, it is preventive measures to give a better understanding of how to pinpoint the issues and prioritising the educational training. Further, the Scottish Government should encourage all sorts of veterans to join Police Scotland when it leaves the forces and next to the skills resource. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer— No, I think that you have concluded, Mr Corry. I hope that the Government will agree with my suggestions. Thank you. The last of the open debate contributions is Bob Doris. I appreciate the opening speech by the minister, Ash Denham, and I take this opportunity to welcome her to her post here this afternoon. Crime is down, violent crime is down and down dramatically over a long period of time. That is factual. The trend began back in the last couple of years of the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat executive, and is progressively built on by our current SNP Scottish Government. The work of the violence reduction unit and its various partners are clearly a key driver to that success. My apologies that I am not going to speak more about their work, but many have done so already this afternoon in the debate. However, it is worth also pointing out that, at the establishment of the violence reduction unit, its success is based on political consensus to place violence within the public health domain, and we have to continue that consensus however we go forward from here this afternoon. However, I also think that the minister also acknowledged that the nature and the manifestation of violent crime might be changing in our communities and that violence may be presenting in a more concentrated fashion in some communities and that there could be more repeat victims. Let me develop that point further. That is not complacency. Some of that crime may be highly and significantly likely to be unreported. We have to have a better understanding of those patterns and changes, and we have to develop our violence reduction strategies accordingly. I have to say that I do not think that that is complacency, but I think that we have a political agreement on that point. Just to go back to the point that I put to Rona Mackay, because she was unsure of the research. It was the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey from last year that said that violent crime victimisation rate for adults in the 15 per cent most deprived areas has shown no significant change since 2008-9. Does the member think that that is something to celebrate, or will he not agree with my amendment that we must show no complacency about stats like that? It is a real shame that you have wasted my contribution time with that intervention, because I have already said that there are issues and I have already said that the Government has acknowledged that, and we have to better understand those patterns of crime and do something about it. I will continue nevertheless. Perhaps we have to look at how we direct resources better to those areas when we identify the nature of those crimes within our communities. I will say to Maurice Corry, for example, that when we look to put more money into deprived areas, he will have my support if he agrees with me as I do that the proceeds of crime funding should not be spread evenly across the country. It should be even more concentrated in deprived areas for those who are the victims of crime suffer at the coalface. I think that to get political consensus on that cannot be money leaving Maurice Corry's constituency and going to my constituency in Maryhill and Springburn, we have to be politically brave if we are serious and we are sincere about tackling those issues in our deprived communities. Violent crime is down. We can celebrate that without complacency and I very much take this debate in the context of what we can do mixed. I would like to look a little bit at that. I would like to talk about Open Gates, an organisation in my constituency. It supports prisoners and exprisioners through an employment and training programme with aim of reducing re-offending and stopping revolving backdoor into prison, which has happened all too often. Crucially, it is run by individuals, including the irrepressible Pat Clark, who have managed to break the cycle themselves, and they will use their experience to mentor and support other offenders to do the same. It is a social enterprise organisation that will manufacture, recycle and upcycle furniture and white goods and sell on to the general public. Based just off Postal Park at the canal in my constituency, I would invite the minister of the cabinet secretary to come and see for themselves the work that they do. I would also make the point that how they are funded can always be precarious at times and perhaps there has to be a more substantial support, whether via direct funding of the Scottish Prison Service to build a sustainable model around that and we could build on that across the country. There is a positive suggestion on how we could take things forward. I do not think that I can be involved in this debate and not mention various youth organisations in my constituency, with Royston Youth Action, North United Communities, Young People's Futures or New Rhythms for Glasgow. Who will do work with young people? Crucially, they are at their best when they are funded to do family work. They are not just diversifying activities for young people but working with young people and their families, because where young people are perhaps going off the rails, some of that behaviour and downward spiral is replicated within the wider family. I know that that is a model of the violence reduction unit that is also used, so I might be thinking more imaginatively about how we can enhance funding to organisations that I have mentioned in a way that better networks that support to the wider family rather than just the young person. The final point that I would like to make is times almost upon me. Domestic violence was mentioned earlier on. I think that it was Mr Finnie that mentioned that and we know the success of the White Ribbon Scotland organisation and globally. It should be unacceptable for gender-based domestic violence male to female. We have to create a society in our most deprived communities as well, but it is just unacceptable for male on male violence. That is a new challenge, I have to say, in some communities and in some areas, but we have to crack it and we will do that by placing it in the public health domain. That is why I celebrate the success of the violence reduction unit and support the motion before it is here this afternoon. We now move to the closing speeches. I call Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by saying something that I should have said in my opening remarks. As we talk about this debate, we really ought to bear in mind the people on the front line delivering this approach, whether that is police officers, social workers, people working in our schools and third sector, because it is only by them that we are challenging their practices, changing their practices and working holistically that we have managed to reduce violence in Scotland. I think that, in particular for the police, that has meant a fairly significant culture change, but one that they recognise is that it is important for them to have relationships on the ground in the communities where violence is such a problem. That is where the debate has been useful. It has not been controversial at times, but that is maybe the point. I think that it could have been disappointing if there had not been points of controversy because this is a challenging subject. All of the things that we will be discussing in connection with violence in our communities are easy, but fundamental three things have been discussed. First of all, is the understanding or diagnosis of the problem. Secondly, to challenge ourselves regarding where we can do more and then ultimately looking to the future. In some ways, the approach to this problem was brought home to me when I was travelling through to Glasgow one day. In the best traditions of Scottish public life, you always bump into interesting people on that Glasgow train. On one occasion, I sat next to a key representative from the Police Federation who was discussing those issues and talked about how we would make progress. He discussed the fact that it was about making early interventions, spotting the problem issues and intervening before the escalator to full-blown criminality. Looking at things such as the reduction in school exclusions and what impact that had had, likewise the reduction in short-term sentences and the fact that we had reduced the number of people going to appallment, and asking whether those were chicken or egg factors. He even raised the fact of lead in fuel. That might seem random, but it is a reality across the western world that the reduction in lead in fuel is considered by some has led to a reduction in violence. My point is that it is not obvious or straightforward all the factors that lie behind the reductions in violence. We must be unflinching in looking at all of them and the consequences of the decisions that we make in public policy have ultimately reduced violence. Niven Rennie has been invoked many times and I have not been following Twitter and I have no doubt that he has given a verdict on whether or not we are accurately reflecting or not, but there is no doubt that cracking it is going to be complicated and we are not there yet. I think that Michelle Ballantyne highlighted on the disease analysis and there are so many factors that we need to look at. I just introduced one further one. Members will know that I take a keen interest in ADHD. The reality is that in the general population, 5 per cent of people have ADHD and the prison population is 25 per cent. Impolment is 40 per cent. Those are some of the things that we need to look at, not just looking at tackling crime in terms of making arrests but also at the underlying factors, looking beyond simply substance misuse or violence and asking ourselves, are there underlying factors? Is it going beyond simply mental health that is important but are there underlying psychological issues or neurodevelopmental issues? I think that a number of other members have also talked about the complexity of the cultural issues that we need to face when we tackle or look at this issue. Fulton MacGregor, Ruth Maguire and James Dornan, and I would agree with them about the music of the 70s, by the way. However, I thought that in some ways the complexity was again highlighted by Fulton MacGregor talking about alcohol. It is not just alcohol consumption itself, but even the containers that alcohol is consumed within. We need to ask ourselves why. Ultimately, one of the key cultural questions is why is it that only 43 per cent of violent crime is reported? Regardless of what side of the argument you have been on this afternoon, I think that that is a fundamental question that we need to ask ourselves. Why is it in some of our communities, in some parts of this country, that people feel unable or that it is inappropriate to report crimes to the police? Maybe that can be one conclusion from this afternoon. I would also like to do another thing that I forgot to do in my opening remarks and join with others in expressing my support for the sentiment of the Liberal Democrat amendment that was not taken. Again, Liam McArthur made two important points. Again, if we are going to tackle this as a cultural issue, looking at how individuals are supported as they come into contact but also leave the criminal justice system—whether that is through care or other issues—our measures are hugely important. Liam McArthur also made another very important point, that ultimately the levels of violence in our society will reflect poverty and inequality that we have in Scotland. Regardless of whatever else we discuss, whatever other measures we talk about and the need to tackle them, ultimately, if we do not tackle that, if we do not tackle inequality and poverty in Scotland, we will not fundamentally be tackling the most fundamental cause of violence in our community. I cannot put that more strongly and make more emphasis than that. Finally, and in conclusion, I would just like to reflect my colleague Neil Finlay's remarks. I think that drugs and substance misuse are one of the most tragic outcomes of poverty and inequality. I think that there is also a consequence of withdrawal of services, and I would like to end on one final note, which is this. If we are looking at the future, about what further things we could do, one further idea maybe is, should we have a VRU for drugs so that we can tackle that issue on a cross-agency, cross-service, holistic manner in the way that we have tackled violence through the VRU. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is obvious from today's debate that there is support and recognition chamber-wide for the excellent work that has been carried out by the Violence Reduction Unit. As the community minister who I, too, also welcomed to her post, Rona Mackay, Michelle and Michelle Ballantyne all stressed that it is a model that other countries are now looking at to copy. Having said that, I consider it a great pity that my party will be unable to support the motion this evening, because the Government failed to make clear that the Violence Reduction Unit has made amazing strides in reducing violent crime. The Scottish Government has failed to acknowledge that there is a serious underreporting of actual incidents of this type of crime. Daniel Johnson I understand that point. I wonder if the Labour amendment was voted through whether or not the Conservative benches would support the motion then. Margaret Smith's problem would be that it would amend the motion and therefore, sadly, if it was voted through, it would not. If we are to address, as we all wish to do, the serious problem, the debate must start with an honest assessment of the situation. I commend Nivenreven Rennie, the former president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and now director of the Violence Reduction Unit for recently highlighting that violent crime is significantly underreported. As Liam Kerr explained, that is based on evidence that hospitals are dealing with far higher numbers of serious assaults than are reported to police. Not only that, according to Police Scotland, non-sexual crimes of violence rose 8 per cent from 1,900 crimes last year to 2,051 crimes this year, and the number of crimes that involved an offensive or bladed weapons are in the same period have risen to over 10 per cent. That evidence backs up anecdotal evidence from lawyers that, even when a crime such as a serious assault is presented at A&E, it is then downgraded to a lesser crime when officially reported. That has included instances in which a police officer has been the victim of an assault. Deputy Presiding Officer, our front-line officers are under enough strain and stress carrying out their daily duties without having to cope with the downgrading of assaults, which then means that recorded crime statistics pay a rosier picture than might actually be the case. For it is crucial that, as in any discussion of official statistics, we never forget that behind those unreported assaults there is a victim of violent crime, who, for a variety of reasons, is either unwilling to seek or unable to get justice. One way to ensure that victims of crime and members—if I could make some progress, if you do not mind, Mr Finlay, if I have time, I will do it later—is to ensure that victims of crime and members of the public have confidence in our police force and in our justice system is through visible local policing. It is therefore deeply concerning, and I believe a retrograde step, that in communities such as Addingson, Police Scotland has not only closed a police counters several years ago but is now selling off property that police officers have been using as a base for the area. Although it is no longer functioning as an active police counter, members of the public in Addingson found it reassuring that police officers have been using four mention stations for their breaks. Now there is no such visible policing. The minister, James Dornan and the VRU itself highlighted the excellent work that carried out training hairdressers, vets and firefighters to identify signs of domestic abuse. That is a good example of the necessary early intervention to which John Finnie, Daniel Johnson and Ruth Maguire all referred. Here I would like to commend and raise awareness about the fantastic animal guardians programme run by the SSPCA. To tackle violent behaviour in children and young people, the programme is funded solely through charitable donations and the RS Mcdonald charitable trust, and it works in collaboration with social work, educational psychologists, CAMHS specialists, teachers and children charities such as Bernardo's. Those stakeholders refer children who have either committed animal cruelty or have the potential to commit animal cruelty to the SSPCA. The SSPCA then works with those children on a one-to-one basis in a fun and non-threatening way and encourages them to recognise both their own emotions and what the animal may be feeling. Since the programme launched in May, the SSPCA has been inundated with referrals with children as young as four being referred. Given that, on average, 14 children a week are excluded from schools in Scotland for assault with a weapon, the SSPCA programme is clearly invaluable. Quite simply, it is only by ensuring transparency and honesty about the level of violent crime that it can be tackled effectively and victims can have confidence to report it. I call Hamza Yousaf to close the debate for around seven minutes. Can I say that I have had the great honour and great pleasure of opening and closing many debates in this Parliament in my six and a half-odd years of being Government Minister, but I do not think that I could be prouder of the achievements of the VRU in closing a debate as I am today and celebrating the undeniable success of the violence reduction unit. I am unashamedly Glasgow born and bred, educated, and I represent a part of that city. Growing up in Glasgow, and James Dornan touched upon this undoubtedly, there were some areas that I just would not go to, especially as a young Asian male. I would avoid those areas because of the perception, if nothing else, that something could happen to me, not so now. I am so proud that we have moved leaps and bounds in my home city. However, if you told me when I was growing up that Glasgow would be held up as a global model for violence reduction for the rest of the world, I would have thought that you would have been downing too many bottles of iron brew. I would just not believe it whatsoever. The fact that we have seen such great success is right that we all from across the chamber recognise that success, because we should all be collectively proud of the fact that the World Economic Forum has held up the VRU as a great model. Of course, Labour's mayor in London, Sadiq Khan, will replicate the VRU model for London. The list of countries that Ash Denham read out in relation to who is looking at the VRU model should all be proud of that. Many of us around the chamber or our political parties have been part of that success. I think that we touched on the Labour-Liberal coalition that came up with the idea of Cathy James and the Justice Minister at the time. It came forward with the idea of the VRU. Of course, in Glasgow, there has been mention so many times throughout this debate that it is not one city administration, not just the current city administration that believes in that model. Of course, the previous city administration believes in it, too, and then the on-going work that we have been bringing forward as a Government, I think, too. We all should be collectively proud of that. The downward trend is really important. I emphasise that word trend. It is an important word, because it is very easy to take one or two-year figures. I am not dismissing those figures. I think that it is right that members mention them, particularly in relation to their own constituencies or region. However, it is important that we look at the long-term trends. The long-term trends are absolutely undeniable. Recorded violent crimes have fallen by 49 per cent since 2006, and it has been at a low level since 1974. A 56 per cent fall in the total number of emergency admissions to hospital, I will in a second. The number of young people under 18 convicted of handling offensive weapons has fallen from 489 in 2006 to 91 in 2016-17. I am going to come to a but, but before I do, please give way to Liam Kerr. I thank the cabinet secretary for the intervention. Just very briefly, Niven Rennie said at the weekend, when someone from government stands up and says that crime is at a 43-year low, I always say that it is recorded crime that is at a low. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge the point that he is making? I do not mean to say yourself. Members were right to raise issues around unrecorded crime and unreported crime. I think that we should all absolutely pay focus to that and attention to that. Although some of the figures that were used were two-thirds, that is incorrect in relation to unreported crime, and that is overestimating it. Nonetheless, I accept the point. Let me try to get back to some of the substantial issues that I want to make in the relatively short time that I have. I just want to give a reassurance to Liam Kerr, to Margaret Mitchell and to the Conservative bench that we are absolutely not complacent. Let me put it on the record, as my predecessor did as well, that violent crime is still too high. Can I give you an absolute assurance that we are not resting in our laurels, that we believe that too many young people still carry knives—one young person carrying a knife is one too many—and that we want to tackle the unreported crime issue. There are many good suggestions across the chamber on how we do that. I will touch on one other issue that was raised during the debate. I will try my best, as much as I possibly can, to rise above the politics of that. Here comes another but, because there was one thing that I cannot let go, which was the accusation of falling police numbers under the SNP, quote unquote, from the Conservative bench. I cannot let that go, because there are now 938 more officers than we inherited when we came to power. I will shortly, but there has been a decrease of 19,588 officers in England and Wales, so to accuse us of falling police numbers when your own Government has presided over a 13 per cent of its hypocrisy of the worst kind. I give way to Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson, just on the numbers, would the cabinet secretary acknowledge that we have lost, since 2013, more than 300 officers from local divisions? What is more, would he also acknowledge that we have seen increases in non-sexual violent crimes in 2015-16 and 2016-17? Will he outline what he will do if that continues in the next data release? It is important to listen to what the police say about the centralised argument. In fact, one of the great things about Police Scotland is the ability to use a national resource that has major local impacts. I think that we should listen to the police on that. I was not dismissing the point that you can have one or two-year figures that we should take note of. I will come back to non-sexual offences, but also sexual offences that we have seen, unfortunately. I use that word purposely. We have seen a rising trend in sexual offences. Can I come to the other political parties and the amendments that they have put down? Daniel Johnson's amendment will be accepting. I thought that his speech was very thoughtful. As I often have found him to be, so will be accepting. That amendment has a point about ensuring that we invest is an important one, and I have a list of investments that we have made, but, because of time, I will not go into that. Can I also join with others across the chamber who thought that Liam McArthur's amendment was very good and not selective? I thought that it was a very important point around throughcare. Can I give him some assurance that, in the next few months, the Scottish Government will be working with community justice partners to see what more we can do in relation to throughcare but an important one? I really do not have time, if you will forgive me. I am coming to the end. Liam Kerr talked a lot about the accuracy of figures. There is no inaccuracy in your motion. I would have thought that the sensible thing would have been to have withdrawn that amendment, because the VRU did offer a clarification on the reported comments that were made, if I can say that. This is the last point. I know that time is against me, Presiding Officer. The central point is one that I am going to keep reiterating as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and I am unapologetic about that. It is an appeal to all of my colleagues, but perhaps particularly to the Conservative benches, that we must never fall into the trap that suggests that there is a tension between strengthening the rights of victims, which there must be, and the rehabilitation of offenders. They are two sides of the same coin. If we truly want to see less victims of crime, we must, as Daniel Johnson used this phrase in a previous debate, preserve the hope of rehabilitation. When Liam Kerr talked about difficult decisions—I do not doubt that I have difficult decisions and this Government has difficult decisions to make—so do he and the opposition. I have often found Liam Kerr to be very thoughtful and not reactionary to issues when I have dealt with him one to one. I say to him that all the evidence on this is utterly irrefutable. Short sentences of less than 12 months are simply nowhere near as effective in rehabilitating offenders as community payback orders. My challenge to Liam Kerr and others is to examine the evidence, speak to the experts and, when it comes to the presumption against short sentences of 12 months, please do the right thing. I appreciate that I am running over time. The last word that I give to Calum Hutchison, who is one of those involved in Street and Arrow, is a project that has been mentioned across the chamber. He said to quote him directly, "...the SVRU has absolutely transformed my life. They have helped to repair a broken person. They believed in me when no one else did. Ian Murray, my project lead, gave me the opportunity to become a trainee with Street and Arrow, which gave me hope in the future. I am now a mentor helping guys just like myself and it is the most rewarding thing I have ever done. The ripple effect from the SVRU helping me is massive. My family get the benefits, my community get the benefits, I am no longer a drain on the NHS or in prison. Everyone at the SVRU has helped me to get to a place that I never thought was possible, where I have peace in my life." Thank you very much and that concludes our debate on violence reduction in Scotland, progress and future priorities. We are going to turn straight to decision time. We have three questions. The first question is that amendment 13995.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 13995 in the name of Humza Yousaf, on violence reduction in Scotland, progress and future priorities, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 13995.1 in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 27, no, 86. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 13995.3, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Humza Yousaf, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 13995, in the name of Humza Yousaf, as amended on violence reduction in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 13995, in the name of Humza Yousaf, as amended, is yes, 86, no, 0. There were 26 abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.