 I'm going to move straight on very quickly because there is absolutely no time in hand in this debate to take interventions. I'm afraid that it comes out of your time. It's a debate on motion 978 in the name of Liam McArthur on justice. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Liam McArthur to speak to move the motion. Eight minutes, Mr McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the chance to open the debate on policing on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in what is something of a double header for me this afternoon. As the chamber will be aware, my party didn't support the 2012 act that created a single national police force. Over the last five years, we've also been in the forefront of holding the SNP Government to account over its bot's centralisation of policing in Scotland, and we make no apology for that. On stop and search, on armed policing, on failings within centralised control rooms and other issues, Liberal Democrats have been right to speak up and to challenge. Let me be clear, though. Police officers and staff carry out difficult, often dangerous jobs on our behalf day in, day out across Scotland. We owe them a debt of gratitude as we do all those in our emergency services, and we have every confidence in them. I firmly believe, however, that passing the fire reform act in 2012 has done them no favours at all. My colleague Alison McInneson predicted during the passage of the bill that police officers and staff would be left to make the best of a bad job, and she was right and they have been doing so ever since. The route of the problems can indeed be traced back very directly to the legislation driven through this Parliament by the then Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill. I am quite happy to do the wrong thing for the right reason. Attempts by Opposition parties to amend the legislation taking account of the concerns felt not just by the public in terms of the loss of local accountability, but by officers and staff themselves fell on deaf ears. Ministers in the opinion of ministers no best. To compound matters, Mr MacAskill chose Stephen House to head up the new national force, someone even less inclined to build consensus or listen to others than the man who appointed him. Add to that a single police authority, the body task with overseeing the new force, which appeared unclear of its responsibilities, largely dysfunctional and prone to a culture of secrecy. Is it any wonder then that we have seen the problems we have over the last five years? Initially there was the tough war between Police Scotland and the SPA. This forced Parliament to establish a sub-committee on policing effectively to carry out the role that the SPA was failing to perform. Those critical of what they see as the politicisation of the police and of policing should bear that in mind. It is the legislation and the flaws within it that have determined the level of political scrutiny. As for having confidence, that is hardly enhanced by a succession of resignations, suspensions and early retirements at the top of both Police Scotland and the SPA. I accept, of course, that the leading protagonists have changed. Michael Matheson, I know, is more consensual than his predecessor. Indeed, his primary role over the first couple of years in office appeared to be putting out all the fires that Mr MacAskill had been wilfully igniting in his Scorched Stairs policy. I also have the utmost respect for the acting chief constable and the new chair of the SPA, Susan Deacon, whose appointment I very much welcome. However, we have been here before. We have heard the promises about resetting relationships. Fundamentally, as the motion suggests, until we get the structure right, until we address the flaws that have been hardwired into the system by the 2012 act, we are setting up those who take on these senior roles to fail. Meanwhile, rank and file officers and staff are still left having to make the best of a bad job. Funding, of course, is key, and I welcome the recent decision in relation to VAT, but this was a mess of the Government's own making, where they were warned in advance and then throughout. In the meantime, as Audit Scotland has highlighted repeatedly, the wanted efficiencies that Mr MacAskill and the SNP heralded as justification for centralisation have simply not materialised. We are left with an organisation in financial distress operating in a structure that is not fit for purpose. That structure has eroded genuine local accountability, as Liberal Democrats have warned from the outset, replacing it with a top-down target-driven approach to policing. While areas of specialist expertise are absolutely essential, that is not in-of-itself a reason for taking a sledgehammer to the way policing is delivered in communities across Scotland. However, way of illustration, only last month, a member of the Protective Services and Community Safety Committee in Fife had her request for Police Scotland to provide a report on a local murder turned down by the SNP chair. In his opinion, she could just get the information from watching FMQs on the BBC iPlayer—so much for local accountability. At the same time, unprecedented power has been invested in a small handful of individuals. All hail to the chief carries risks, and not only when the chiefs are Kenny MacAskill and Stephen House. The checks and balances have not worked. The concerns are brushed aside, at least initially, with the high-handed arrogance that comes from a lack of proper accountability. When reports emerged of industrial levels of unregulated stop and search, including of small children, ministers insisted that that was an operational matter for police chiefs. Public concerns about armed police on routine duties were dismissed by Government as scaremongering. So, too, were warnings about overstretched staff following closure of police control rooms. The deaths of Lamarabelle and John Ewell in the crash on the M9 brought home the sobering reality. It is an article of faith for Liberals that power is most safely exercised when it is shared. Our current structure of policing cuts against the very grain of that principle. We do not have confidence in those structures and we need change. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to see a comprehensive, properly funded policing plan for each local authority area developed and agreed by communities and councillors and the responsibility of a senior police officer. SPA members are appointed by this Parliament on a two-thirds majority to ensure a balanced and representative authority and sensibly diluting the control of the justice secretary. The powers of the chief constable, the finding statute, reflect the need for new democratic checks and balances. The aim is to inject democracy back into our policing. There are proposals, but a broader consensus must be built, which is why we propose an independent commissioner. I give way to John Mason. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Would he accept that when I was a councillor in Glasgow and the way that we went with Strathclyde police, I had no influence whatsoever involvement in the police apart from a local level? Liam McArthur. I cannot speak to the specifics of John Mason's experiences as a councillor, but the message back from councillors, the length and breadth of the country that I have spoken to, is that what they have seen is a dilution of the accountability that they had previously. I think that the illustration that I gave them from Fife points to that very, very directly. Commissions can provide mature, thoughtful, expert responses. They have been gamechangers before. They have got this Government out of holes before. Just think what would have happened had SNP ministers rejected our call to press pause on plans to abolish corroboration, allowing Lord Bonami's commission to do its work. Without the commission led by John Scott, we would still be seeing the police deploying extensive, unregulated stop and search. That is the kind of reset that Police Scotland needs. We have every confidence in our police officers and staff. We have no confidence though in the structures that they are being asked to operate within. We need change. I move and urge Parliament to support the motion in my name. Thank you very much, Mr McArthur. I now call Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary to speak and move amendment 978.46 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, I outlined a significant journey that policing in Scotland has been on to implement one of the most significant public sector reforms since devolution. The legislation agreed by this Parliament to establish Police Scotland was supported by both the Labour Party and also by the Conservative Party. Let us remind ourselves that this was delivered in the context of real terms cuts to the Scottish budget by the UK Government, a process that was started by the last Tory Lib Dem Coalition. Of course, those cuts have been further amplified by the intransigence in the part of the UK Government when it came to the vac treatment of our emergency services. In government, the Lib Dems were happy to deliver a treasury windfall of £125 million at the expense of Scotland's police service. Members will recall the former chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander. Of course, now, sir, Danny Alexander declined all of our attempts to reclaim the VAT and even refused to engage with the Scottish Police Federation on this very issue. When the Lib Dems talk about pressures on our police service, they should take a good look at themselves, given the financial pressures that they help to create when in government. The choices that we faced in creating Police Scotland were one of transforming to protect the front line or allowing the front line to wither due to austerity. I remain in no doubt that we have chosen the right course. Our communities continue to be served by committed local officers, whilst the single service has opened up access to a set of national specialist capabilities that allow us to respond more effectively to some of the most difficult societal problems that we face, be it terrorism, child protection, major investigations into complex crime, human trafficking or extremism. The legislation passed by this Parliament also established the Scottish Police Authority and the Police Investigation and Review Commissioner to provide a level of scrutiny that simply did not exist previously. It is my belief that policing is more transparent and accountable than it has ever been. I recognise that major reform always brings challenges. Nevertheless, policing in Scotland continues to perform well. Against a host of measures, be it recorded crime or public confidence, it is clear that policing remains strong. A point recognised by DCC Ian Livingstone, the Scottish Police Federation and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in recent weeks. Of course, policing is a complex service and supports a large number of vulnerable people, many of whom are in crisis situations. The people dealing with those situations are our police officers and staff, and they do a remarkable job. In that context, I believe that it is important that we are able to move on to a more mature and honest debate about the realities of policing and the risks that it carries. However, it is structured. As many policing experts with long experience have also highlighted, there were many challenges and many difficulties under the legacy arrangements—a point that some choose to ignore. Of course, it is not to say that there are things that we can learn and improve. I accept, for example, the importance of strengthening the community focus of our police service, recognising that one size does not fit all. That is why it is a key theme of the strategic policing priorities that were implemented last year and is core to the policing 2026 strategy that was published in June of this year. That strategy sets a clear direction for policing. I am committed to supporting the Deputy Chief Constable, Ian Livingstone and his team with its implementation. Progress has also been made to improve governance and transparency at the SPA following a review by HMICS earlier this year. The review of the authorities' executive function is in its final stages and will deliver a new model for how the board can be supported more effectively. Kenneth Hogg has taken up post as new chief officer and Susan Deacon has taken up her role as chair of the authority this week, with this Parliament playing a direct role in her appointment. The new chair has made clear that she intends to make the authority much more engaged and engaging when it comes to the public debate around policing in Scotland and to take a more inclusive approach to governance matters. I believe that our collective focus should be on supporting Police Scotland and its executive team, the SPA board and the wider policing family in Scotland, to assist them in driving forward further improvements and to make sure that we build on the progress that has been made to date. I believe that that is an approach that will deliver real benefits quickly rather than the uncertainty that would be created by another review of policing structures in Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I call Liam Kerr to speak. I move amendment 978.1. Mr Kerr, five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Scottish Conservatives will support the Liberal Democrat motion at decision time this evening but also put forward an amendment in my name, which I hear by move. At the outset, let me make clear that when we support the motion's reference to structure, we are referring to the act and why it should be reviewed. I am interested today in the structure and historic shape of policing in Scotland and not operational challenges that may have arisen recently. Things could always be better and it is important that we look constructively towards the future. The governance structure referred to in the motion is a function of the Police and Fire Reform Act of 2012, which established a Scottish Police Authority to maintain policing, promote policing principles and continuous improvement of policing and to hold the chief constable to account. The SPA was conceived as an apolitical arms-length body sitting between policing and central government, which would provide national strategic oversight and accountability of the single police force. The board would be appointed on the basis of their specific skills to create an epistocracy, yet it is that act and certain decisions that have followed, which have effectively hardwired flaws into the structure. Specifically, the only explicit reference to accountability in the act is framed as a duty to hold the chief constable to account. It has not gone to specify how and is not prescriptive, meaning that the SPA has struggled to establish a performance framework or a set of criteria against which to achieve that endgame. That itself is a function of certain vagueness and ambiguities inherent in the previous system that it borrowed from. What has developed, according to research, is a board that lacked confidence to raise or address issues of public concern and was described by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland as dysfunctional with fundamental weaknesses, not on that timescale, I'm afraid, Mike Rumbles. It was criticised for conducting financial scrutiny in private in contrast to the transparency and accountability required. It is that very transparency and accountability that was hindered by the 2012 act, which conferred considerable power on the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It is that post holder from time to time who appoints the chair of the SPA and influences the final composition of the SPA board. It is that act that gives Scottish ministers formal powers to give certain directions to the SPA. Amongst some, there is a perception that the SPA is an extension of the Scottish Government. In answer to John Mason's point earlier, whether or not that is accurate, it is an unhealthy perception. Policing operates by collective public consent, and the public has to know that those in whom they trust are operating free from political influence. Specifically, in April 2017, it was reported that an SPA board member had quit over, quote, government interference. Brian Barber said that the Government received SPA board documents before they were published in a bid to, quote, control the agenda and ensure difficult issues never made the light of day. Senior SPA figures complain that the Government is too involved with one individual claiming every time we try to bite, the Government removes a tooth. I have been shocked at the level of government interaction. The former chair stated that the SPA was not a watchdog, as it has no powers of sanction. That has meant that other stakeholders such as the Justice Subcommittee, the media and the public have been seeking to deliver accountability. The motion proposes a solution to establish an independent commission with a view to presenting proposals for change by summer 2018. That seems sensible to me, as decisions and considerations such as that should not be driven by politics and politicians but independent evidence-led reviews. For that reason, we will find it difficult to support the SNP amendment, absent that commitment, and I invite the cabinet secretary to perhaps address that in closing to make it easier for us. Turning to the Conservative amendment, the public like more locally accountable policing. Too many people now believe that policing decisions are dictated from above, rather than decided in their own communities. Let us ask the experts how to restore that local accountability in the current financial and resource climate and with the nature of crime changing. The final part of our amendment acknowledges that the force is in the midst of what DCC Livingston calls difficult days. Whatever the reasons, that will be a disruptive and challenging time for front-line officers and staff. I think that it is vital that we in this Parliament show that we are 100 per cent behind our police and we are proud of our dedicated officers and staff. The excellence of police officers and staff on the ground is no excuse for the clear structural failings that need fixings. I urge the justice secretary to not use their professionalism as a shield to any legitimate criticism of the structure of the force that his Government created. We all have a common interest in getting this sorted and getting this right. We owe it to the public and we owe it to the police. Thank you very much. I call on Claire Baker to speak to a move amendment 978.35. I am pleased to take part in today's debate. I will not address all the amendments in my opening statement as I have a short time, but I will set out the reasons for Labour's amendment. I would like to begin by putting on record our appreciation for the work of all officers and staff within Police Scotland. Although we scrutinise and sometimes criticise and hold the Government to account over the legitimate concerns that have been over policing in recent years, including call handling, stop and search, front disclosures, the officers and staff often working in difficult circumstances should be recognised for their commitment and their degree of public service. However, there is no denying that this has been a bad year for leadership within Police Scotland and at the SPA. We have seen resignations, early exits and now suspensions. Although the Scottish Government and the leadership at Police Scotland and the SPA have to answer for the difficulties that we have seen in recent months, we have to ask if there are more fundamental issues here to be addressed. Scottish Labour supported the creation of the single police force. We recognise the benefit to communities across Scotland and having a national force that provides specialised officers and support wherever it is needed. That has to be balanced by a commitment to local policing, which too many people feel is currently being compromised. However, recognising the benefits of a single force does not and should not restrain us from raising legitimate concerns over the way in which police reform has developed and some of the problems that have it is in. I can see some merit in the motion's call for an independent commission, although I have some concerns over timing and remit. While not questioning the integrity of a single force, there are areas concerning governance, accountability and autonomy that need to be addressed. The passage of the police and fire reform act was rushed and concerns were raised at the time around democratic accountability, local oversight and the appointment process. I accept that the bill was passed and I voted for that bill, but the experience of living with the legislation for five years indicates the need for revisiting in those areas. Audit Scotland, HMICS and the two parliamentary committees have all identified weaknesses in leadership and management. In the last Parliament, as Labour's justice spokesperson, Graham Pearson published a review into policing on some of the concerns that were growing over local accountability and leadership. That review made a number of recommendations that are still relevant two years later. Those include greater parliamentary oversight, better local accountability and a stronger, more robust SPA. In that light, I welcome the appointment of Susan Deacon in her role as chair of the SPA. Her interview on Sunday was very encouraging and I do not doubt her intention to lead a more transparent organisation, but I would argue that she is hamstrung by structures that she cannot change. Although no-one doubts the ability and experience of Kenneth Hogg, the arrangement that he is a civil servant seconded for a year does little to diminish claims of government interference and overreached influence, all factors highlighted by the recent research from Dr Ali Malik. The SPA needs to regain the public's confidence, it needs to demonstrate that it is robustly autonomous from government and it is robust in its scrutiny of Police Scotland. It is an important role to play and, in recent months, it has become the story rather than doing its job effectively. It can be argued that part of this problem is who it is accountable to. The appointment of Susan Deacon was the first with some limited parliamentary involvement and I recognise the cabinet secretary's willingness to compromise on that and the First Minister also said that she was not unsympathetic to the argument. With this new appointment in place, we must now look at the legislation and consider how the Parliament can play a full role in future appointments. The current arrangements concentrate power for policing in the Scottish Government. I understand that I have five minutes just to clarify. The current arrangements concentrate power for policing with the Scottish Government. It is the SPA who appoints the SPA chair, who then in turn appoints the chief constable, and it is the Scottish Government who has the capacity to influence the final composition of the board. It is also the Government that gives directions to the same board, stresses strategic priorities for the police and approves the SPA's strategic police plan. It should then be no surprise that we hold the cabinet secretary responsible for any problems at Police Scotland. The SPA needs to recognise its role as a public body and be able to exert itself in its responsibilities. The controversies that saw the exit of Andrew Flanagan and John Folley must not be repeated. Although I welcome the reintroduction of public committee meetings, there are still concerns over closed working groups that do not publish membership, minutes, papers or agendas. That may suit the SPA and may even suit the Scottish Government and the Justice Secretary, but this lack of transparency does not benefit the SPA or Police Scotland. Our amendment today recognises the weaknesses in the way that governance, accountability and leadership have developed and the ways in which it is stipulated within the legislation. A commission could be the way to go on that, but it would need a level of agreement in Parliament about the purpose. Judging from the number of amendments that we have today, I do not think that we are there yet. However, I would ask members to reflect on addressing some of those issues. It does require legislative change, and we should not be timid in addressing that. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on John Finnie to speak to and move amendment 9378.24, Mr Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I do move that motion in my name. I pose a question to colleagues around the chamber, and that is, do they remember the times before Police Scotland when everything was good and there was no issues about policing? If your answer to that is yes, then your memories failed you, you do not know or you are misrepresenting. The policing is a core element of any liberal democracy, and I was proud to have served as a police officer for 30 years, so I have to tell you that I take grave exception, not everything, but to some passage in the Liberal Democrats motion, which is an overt attack on Police Scotland, and that is, and I will read it to you, that the Parliament does not have confidence in the structure of Police Scotland to deliver resilient policing at a strategic level. Can I say to members that they do not answer questions across the chamber to make a formal intervention? The reality is that, of course, people are entitled to their opinion, but of all things, of all aspects of policing for the Liberal Democrats to focus on on the strategic level, I find peculiar. Organise crime, human trafficking, terrorism—no, I will not take an intervention. Organise crime, human trafficking and terrorism are the very elements that individual forces were not able to deal with and were required to be dealt with collectively. Our motion states that there is an arguable element that the strategic element of Police Scotland is sound. Of course, most people's experience of policing is local, and I have been very critical of many aspects of policing. It is not least the stop and search debacle that has been referred to by many. The role that Stephen House played in that, I actually think that he was the right man to drive things forward initially, but, of course, when he saw the rest of Scotland being a larger version of Strathclyde, and policies that are applicable to urban areas being applied in rural areas, then, quite frankly, he had lost it. There has been some progress on local policing methods, but, of course, as our motion talks about as well, the frailty of the growing deployment of armed officers was another failing. It was cynical opportunism by the police at the time there, but I am confident that it would not or could not happen again. We learn from our mistakes, and one aspect that reassures me in relation to that is the consultation that is required to take place between Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority about any significant community impacts. Of course, all along, people have said that there should have been a community impact assessment of the implications of the roll-out. Errors are sorted along the way, and we have some way to go. One of the biggest errors laterally was the obsession with a figure, an arbitrary figure, £17,234, which was a burden around the neck of Police Scotland and meant that we lost a lot of valuable police staff with the post being backfilled. The romantic notion that everything was good is completely along. Quite frankly, there was an inability to scrutinise. We heard from John Mason that that certainly was the experience of some other places. There was an inability to scrutinise, not because of the unwillingness to scrutinise, but because at some strategic levels, people on the police boards, through no fault of their own, did not have the necessary level of clearance with which to scrutinise. Complaints against chief officers in the former forces were an absolute joke, and I speak from personal experience, where decisions were taken out with the committee on matters that would have seen junior officers being the subject of a report to the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. There has been mention made of the parliamentary role of the police sub-committee, and I think that it has played a pivotal role in addressing some of those issues. There is a way to go, and I will hope to catch that in my summing up. Thank you very much. Please move your amendment. I did, but I will move it again. Thank you. Thank you. Open debate. Speeches tight. Speeches four minutes, please. Alex Cole-Hamilton, followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The centralisation of Police Scotland was opposed by this party almost in isolation, and we now stand vindicated in that opposition. Through the list of near failures and missteps by the High Command of Police Scotland that have undermined policing in this country since its merger, in the subterranean morale of our hard-working front-line police officers, and in the decimation of backroom support staff, which has seen travel nine calls go unheeded, and beat cops repeatedly taking off tasks to perform backroom functions, the recent high profile and shambolic travails in the upper echelons of the unified force are just the latest in a long list of disasters to have rock policing in this country. I see the social cost of this flawed legislation that underpins it in the case work that comes in through my constituency surgeries, in the meetings that I have with local police chiefs, and even in the way that we lock up our house at night, because despite an insistence from the Government that community-level policing would remain unchanged, we immediately, from 2013 onwards, felt the irresistible gravitational pull of strathclyde policing culture on Edinburgh Beats. Straight out of the traps, we saw a major shift in the way that policing happens on the streets of our nation's capital. Dedicated house-breaking teams were broken up, and retasked to focus on responding to a spectre of knife crime that had never actually taken hold in this city, a decision that led then, perhaps unsurprisingly, to an epidemic in house burglaries and car thefts, anuptik that has endured to this day with a rash of break-ins in my own community of black hole just this past week. Policing of the sex industry was also brought into question, where the soft regulation of tolerant zones and licensed saunas in Edinburgh, which retained a focus on keeping workers safe, was challenged by Police Scotland with a zero-tolerance approach. That could have driven the industry back into the shadows and removed the protections offered by the city to sex workers. Glasgow solutions for Edinburgh problems. That was symptomatic of the reality that, for Police Scotland, with its new-found size came an inflated sense of power. Liam McArthur has already described the worst excesses of that, and the refusal of the chief constable to recognise the will of Highland Council in its opposition to armed officers routinely patrolling Highland communities. Presiding Officer, this attitude undermined the principle of policing by consent in this country, and by doing so fundamentally damaged the social contract that has existed between the police and our communities for 100 years and more. Four years on, the Government is still trying to get this right. I like Susan Deacon, I'm impressed by her, but her appointment represents just another role of the dice in efforts by the SNP to fix flawed legislation and organisational structure with the introduction of a personality. For as long as the precepts that underpin centralisation remain unchallenged, the culture and flawed structures will continue to blight that founding vision. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today in calling for reform, for reform is certainly needed. We need to get to a space where local communities and councils can once again determine and set the objectives and priorities of local policing, where the police authority is democratically appointed by this Parliament and where the powers of the police constable are anchored in statute, thereby simultaneously restoring and guaranteeing that most liberal principle of policing by consent in this country. First of all, the Lib Dems have been consistent with our position against the formation of Police Scotland. We all understand their position on that and we all understand the continual questioning of aspects of Police Scotland, some of which is in the motion today. However, the absolute negativity that they regularly espouse does not highlight the positives of delivery from our police officers across the country. The constant attacks do not help morale. If an organisation is continually told that it is failing, it isn't working and it isn't delivering, then it's no surprise that people in that organisation were to believe that they aren't valued. John Finnie, in his contribution a few moments ago, spoke of some of the positive aspects of the formation of Police Scotland. I encourage the Lib Dems to listen to it. I want to go back and look at the official report of some of the comments from John Finnie. I value our police officers and everyone involved in Police Scotland. Are there challenges? Absolutely yes, there are, but there were challenges with the previous forces as well. There are also challenges in every single organisation. The creation of Police Scotland was always going to be challenging. The accused level of public sector reform was going to highlight some issues and some of the things that have happened are being investigated as we know it, so I'm not going to get into that area, but clearly the creation of Police Scotland has been more successful as some of us in the chamber want the rest of the country to believe. Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation's Twitter post this morning provided clarity and a complete dismantling of the Lib Dem position today. I've only got four minutes. Also, David Hamilton, the vice-chair of the Scottish Police Federation, criticised the Lib Dem for the Motion, which links two unrelated misconduct matters with a structure necessitated by austerity, brought about when the Liberal Democrats were in government. The Scottish Government has put in an extra £100 million into the budget by 2021, and despite the huge cuts to its budget from the UK Government under the previous Conservative Liberal Democrat Administration and now under the current Conservative UK Government, even more could have been put in if the Lib Dems, when they were in coalition government with the Tories, scrapped the VAT if they had done something about that. I've already said that I'll have no exchanges, you come and speak through the chair with interventions. The Liberal Democrats have been carping from the sidelines, whereas when they were in power in Westminster, they could have done something about the VAT issue and they could have meant more money going into Police Scotland. If the Lib Dems were so concerned about the finances of Police Scotland, why didn't they do something about it? There are successes with the formation of Police Scotland. Recorded crime is at its lowest level in 43 years. There have been 238,651 crimes were recorded in 2016-17. That is the lowest number on record since 1974. Also, the crime risk is lower in Scotland as compared to England and Wales—14.5 per cent compared to 15.9 per cent. Also, since 2008-9, cash back for communities' monies £75 million went in to help organisations to help young people across the country. That's delivering some nearly 2 million activities and opportunities across Scotland. The main frustration that I've got, certainly with Police Scotland, is that we keep on losing our divisional commanders, but that happened under Strathclyde Police as well. The motion in front of us by the Liberal Democrats once again is absolutely utter nonsense. Support Police Scotland and the police officers that we have, because it's the Liberal Democrats who are reducing their morale. Thank you very much. It's important that the public have full confidence in their police forces and at all levels from local officers doing the rounds on the streets to the very top levels of management in the police force. For them to have that confidence in their police force, the public needs to know that a structure and framework is in place that will give the police force the best chance to succeed. It is also the very least of our hard-working front-line officers and staff deserve. As Liam McArthur's motion notes that the current system clearly is not working and what we need to do is to look at it again. That is why the call for the establishment of an independent commission to look into this is a welcome suggestion and why we shall call while I shall join my Conservative colleagues in supporting the motion and in supporting Liam Kerr's amendment as well. The reason for Liam Kerr's amendment is that the importance principle is that decisions need to be made local to those whom they affect. That is why, in my opinion, an important part of a commission's work will be to tell us how we can better put the local communities back at the heart of policing in Scotland, putting local accountability at the heart of everything that Police Scotland does and should be central to its future core structure and governance. Far too many people in Scotland feel that policing decisions are dictated from above by a centralised bureaucracy who does not care for their opinions or thoughts rather than decided in their own local communities. That is because what the public sees is thousands of officers being taken off the street to become part of a national and regional or regional resources. Figures show that some police divisions are lost up to as much as 30 per cent of their officers. That in turn has led to a reduction in the ability of local officers to be adaptable to local needs and focus on key local priorities. What the public also sees is figures such as Calum Steel of the Scottish Police Federation saying that the police force, and I quote, risks being seen as walking away from certain elements of the communities whilst we talk about chasing other parts of it. The public sees that crime affects those in our society with the least most. The risk of being a victim of crime in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland remained unchanged between 2012 and 2013 and 2014-15. It is estimated that around 4.4 per cent of adults experience 58 per cent of all crime in Scotland. It is important that we make policing accountable again, and the Scottish Conservatives have offered a solution as to how we can do that, such as Margaret Mitchell's suggestion about changing the way that the chair of the SPA is selected. Making police accountable is particularly important while we have a Government that will not accept any responsibility for the failures in the system that they have created. I believe that the Government and those who manage the police, like all public sector organisations, need to be answerable to those whom they serve. In conclusion, it is vital that we bring local accountability back to policing in Scotland so that the public can once again rebuild their trust in the management of their police force. Presiding Officer, it is true to say that, when we passed the police and fire reform Scotland Act 2012, there were concerns raised about implementation, even from people who supported the principle of reform. Now, two chief constables later, two chairs of the police authority and one chief executive having taken early retirement and a number of high-profile suspensions, appears to be an organisation in a degree of turmoil. Make no mistake, that is having an impact throughout the police force. The local policemen and women that I speak to in my community, they are demoralised. They are on the front line, keeping us safe, protecting us from crime, but we keep asking them to do even more with even fewer resources. That simply cannot continue because they need and deserve our support. Ultimately, this is the Scottish Government's responsibility. In doing so, let me just say a word about so-called political interference. It is undoubtedly the case that there is more scrutiny of the police and is not, in my view, a bad thing for there to be more accountability. That should be embraced, but the Scottish Police Authority that was supposed to have oversight of Police Scotland and ensure that it was accountable has been disappointing to say the least. Their own lack of accountability, poor governance structures, were exposed in a recent Audit Scotland report. Reports of secret meetings, little transparency, inappropriately targeting board members for being disloyal when they were simply asking questions. The list goes on. Before the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament, the chair and chief executive displayed an extraordinary level of arrogance and complacency. The Scottish Police Authority was set up to be the arm's length body between Police Scotland and the Scottish Government to ensure their accountability and also the independence of the police from government. Instead, we hear it being bypassed by the cabinet secretary. We have members of the board reporting that the board was useless, toothless, a waste of time and the perception and the threat that, if they were to upset the chief constable, the cabinet secretary would intervene to stop them. The Public Audit Committee heard directly about interference by civil servants on behalf of the cabinet secretary. It sounds like the cabinet secretary is hands-on when he shouldn't be, but when it matters, he is sometimes described as posted, missing. It is true to say that Police Scotland has not had its problems to seek. Recent reports about mistakes in call handling, the lack of speed and response have, of course, been concerning. All of that said, I am not in favour of a commission. I think that it distracts from getting on with the job now. We have a new chair of the SPA, known to many of us, Susan Deacon, a former MSP. We have an acting chief constable, both of whom I have absolute confidence in. Derek Penman at HCMIS made significant recommendations about what needed to change at SPA. Let's implement them. There is at least one review under way about support for the SPA board, and my former colleague Graham Pearson, who has been a senior ranking police officer, also conducted a review in 2015. Not surprisingly, his review recommended strengthening accountability, transparency and autonomy. The issues that he raised are issues that we face now. We have a justice to sub-committee. I would be interested to know whether they would consider undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. At the end of the day, I have enormous respect, as we all do, for the police and what they do, especially those in ill division in my area. However, the issue is how we support them, how we resource them and, to be frank, we need to do much better at that. Thank you very much. Fulton MacGregor, the last speaker in the open debate, Mr MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats are using the current situation to attack the entire police force. I agree with what John Finnie has said, because that is what the motion is. For someone who is usually very constructive on committee in Liam McArthur, I feel that the motion is beneath him. To use the alleged, and to be clear, yet unproven actions of a handful of senior officers in this manner trying to attire the entire force is shameful, and, as I said, beneath the business of the Liberal Democrats. I completely agree with the new chair of the SPA, Susan Deacon, who said on Sunday that she takes the issue with the notion that our police service is itself in crisis. I also agree with DCC Livingston, who asked for the service to be apolitical and not be part of a political debate pushed around within a debate. It is incredibly unhelpful for anyone to jump in this issue and try to make it political. It damages the reputation of the police force and has a direct impact on the front line officers who put their lives on the line for us every single day. Of course, there are challenges, as people have said, in bringing eight forces together, but the stats speak for themselves. Crime is at a 40-year low. People feel safer now than ever before, and the risk of being a victim of crime is 14.5 per cent, down from 20.4 per cent in 2009. A single force allows the amalgamation of railway policing, for example, into a force allowing faster response to incidents on our railways. Those are just some of the positives and stats that the motion seeks to ignore. I have some sympathy with John Finnie's motion, where he is coming from with regard to armed officers and the concern in our communities about seeing officers patrolling well armed. Having said that, I understand a recent survey of people who saw a majority state that they would prefer their serving officers to be armed. I am not, for a minute, suggesting that that is the right route to progress. I have my own views on that as well, but I think that it needs more discussion. It was worth reflecting on, because it was in John Finnie's motion. The Liberal Democrats talked about localised policing. I know that they do not have any representation in Lanarkshire, so I am going to give them a little bit of info for what is going on in my area specifically, because I am also all about local policing and what is best, accountability and decision making locally. The divisional commander, chief superintendent Roddy Irvine, has set up a local problem-solving team throughout Lanarkshire, good old-fashioned community policing. Each team led by an inspector with support for sergeant, two constables are assigned to each local authority ward area. In my constituency, there are an extra two assigned to the town centre. Early indications are that those teams are having a positive impact locally, and I would suggest that the Liberals actually spend some time finding out what is happening on the ground, rather than just picking up stats. Those officers engage with MSPs, councillors and a wide range of stakeholders. Actually, because I have contact with a lot of local councillors, I decided to very quickly, when Liam McArthur was speaking, text in a WhatsApp group to them to ask what their thoughts on the policing service were. Almost right away, I got responses. Councillor Kirsten Larson is very good at working with us and fostered a good relationship between councillors, police and the community. Councillor Tracy Carrager, local police in Coatbridge South, are very accessible, and I am currently working with him towards a joint surgery. That is real-life councillors minutes ago, given that indication, not just within minutes. That is local police, and that is how it is working locally. I would ask everybody to get behind the local police. Thank you. Closing speeches. Collin John Finnie, to close for the green's four minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. It has been an interesting debate, as many would have predicted. I do not doubt, for one second, the sincerity of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in wanting to make things better. What I would say is that everything is not about structure. I accept the position that you adopted, but I would like you to join with everyone else in playing your part at not appearing to question the operational effectiveness of Police Scotland, because everything suggests that they are effective. I think that the criticism of the Scottish Police Authority is well documented and entirely merited. That said, Misty can take over, and I have issued very well. I am sure that others are due to meet her in the coming weeks. I think that we know that the first chair was ineffective and disengaged in the real issues, and too concerned with an irrelevant bun fight about functions. Quite evidently, the Police Authority played catch-up on the issues of stop and search in armed policing and, in fact, it was very unhelpful in its role with the report on armed policing and stop and search. The second chair became ineffective, and it certainly was inappropriate with a fellow board member—it was entirely unacceptable. It has now been involved in facilitating a gardening leave for the chief constable, who, in my view, should be suspended. That failure in itself has caused disaffection, because people want fairness and equity. That has not always been the case. I alluded to the historic position on allegations of misconduct, which, if they were in junior ranks, they would have been construed as inferring criminality and how they were set aside in the past. There has been a frailty in consultation. I urge Police Scotland to understand where their frailties are, and they are in openness and transparency. That is no more graphically shown in relation to a matter, which is the subject of on-going consideration by the Police Committee. That is the counter-corruption unit, in which they are stringing out. We now have three other forces involved. In the public quite rightly go, if that is how they treat their own, how are they likely to treat us? I think that we need to draw a line under that. What we need to do is recognise that there are elements of policing that are best dealt with at a strategic level. Those are counter-terrorism, organised crime and some of the firearms issues and human trafficking. That has to be informed by local policing. One of the good bits in the legislation was the local policing plan. I would want a situation where the local policing plan, accepting that there is a strategic level of stuff, which is not just within Scotland, of course, but within the islands of the United Kingdom and beyond a dimension, but local policing is cruising. We need to get to the situation. I have repeatedly asked about devolving the resources. That is not simply the money, because, of course, the bulk of resources is salaries, but devolving decision making. That can be about devolving decision making about some of the resources, because there has been a centralisation of the supervisory structure in some of the specialist units. We need a situation that is applied in northern Constabulary where, bizarrely, some people think that the two police officers who police the island of Barra were responsible for their own overtime budget. Who better place to say that we require to work longer tonight? There are a couple of dances on or whatever. We might be well short of that, but what we do need is a situation where appropriate policing is taking place at an appropriate level and appropriately being monitored. Of course, there is no point in scrutinising if there is nothing to scrutinise that has led to some disengagement from some of the local bodies. That should be the bedrock. We should be doing it the other way. What we should be talking about is how effective local policing is to deliver those very good results. I do not think that the model itself is wrong. We need to push it down and have genuine local policing. Thank you, Mr Finlay. I call on Claire Baker to close for labour for minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a wide-ranging debate, arguably far too much to consider in the time that we have before us. There have been comments that there is a romantic notion that everything was good in the past. I recognise that we now have in place more consistent procedures, we have national measures and we have more scrutiny, but with this comes greater responsibility. Jackie Baillie, as convener of the Audit Committee, did highlight the well-documented weaknesses that we are seeking to address. While today is focused on structure, we have all recognised the hard work of officers, but we would do well to acknowledge the recent evaluation of police and fire reform, which found that morale among officers is low, with many no longer considering it a job for life. Although Police Scotland's budget has been protected in real terms, the survey also found that Scotland's police officers have become less visible to the public. We have all had complaints about response times for number 101. While I think that a debate about governance and scrutiny is valuable and relevant, that is what is really important. There have been some persistent issues around increasing local responsibility. It has been argued that the centralisation of policing has been to the detriment of local policing. The Government's motion talks about the scope for improvement in the way that current accountability models work, particularly with regard to engaging local interests and national government, but it has not detailed how that will be progressed or how that will be developed. Local accountability is identified as a weakness across the chamber, so how do we address it? How can we increase scrutiny at this level and the level of accountability? I can see that the Government can argue that scrutiny of policing is stronger than it has ever been, given that the SPA exists. We have a parliamentary committee, but there are weaknesses that are well documented. It has taken FOIs, investigative journalists, questioning academics to shine a light on a number of those issues, including stop and search, including the financial arrangements of the British Transport Police merger, including the recent suspension of officers. I appreciate much of what the cabinet secretary said in his opening statement, but the protection of front-line officers has led to a significant reduction in support staff, making it difficult for officers to do their job, so I cannot completely accept his argument over protecting the service. Although there is much I agree with in John Finnie's amendment, it is too prescriptive for us to support today. A number of members mentioned political interference and the acting chief constable Ian Livingstone is recognised as an experienced, intelligent and highly skilled officer, and he has our thanks for taking on this role at this time. His calls over less political interference at the weekend is interpreted as a call for less political debate, but it is not the opposition parties who have been identified as overly influencing policing or interfering in the role of the SPA—it is the Government. We need greater clarity over roles and responsibilities in this area. The Green amendment also talks about the need for scrutiny of more controversial decisions, and if we compare what is routinely published in England and Wales around policing, there is much more information available in the public domain. I appreciate that there are issues with the legacy forces and the way in which information is collected, old technology, which is incompatible, but we should have a strategy to deal with that. We should have an ambition to be more open and transparent, and I believe that that approach would help to build confidence in police actions and decisions. While the creation of Police Scotland was a move to increase efficiencies, to look to protect public services in difficult financial times, to bring consistency to the police response throughout Scotland and strengthen specialist policing, to respond to growing challenges such as human trafficking, serious and organised crime and online fraud, it's creation did bring a different dynamic to policing in Scotland. It did bring with it greater political scrutiny, and the intensity that is placed on the chief constable makes it a fairly unique job within Scotland's public sector, and the role of the SPA there to provide checks and balance is sometimes seen as an alternative power base. I believe that increasing both capacity and devolution in both those organisations could be a good thing that we need to seriously consider. Thank you. Thank you. Collin Margaret Mitchell, to close for Conservatives. Ms Mitchell, four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Almost five years ago, Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012 led the creation of Police Scotland. At that time, serious concerns were expressed about the fact that no full business case had been carried out and about the lack of checks and balances in the Act's provisions, as Scotland's eight regional forces moved to one single force. Today, it is evident that those misgivings swept aside by the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, in much the same way as the current Cabinet Secretary has attempted to do, have come home to Ruth. The estimated efficiency savings that the Scottish Government asserted would be realised have instead translated into a deficit. The SPA has a remit to scrutinise the governance of the new single force and to hold the chief constable to account. So the cabinet secretary is correct, there has been more scrutiny. The point is that time and again, the SPA has been found to be on the back foot having become aware of a problem after it has imploded in the public domain. I therefore very much welcome the appointment of Susan Deacon as the new SPA chair. However, the fact is that she is the third person in less than five years to occupy the post tells its own story. I wish Susan well in her post, however, she settles into her role. I once again seek an assurance from the cabinet secretary that she or any other holder of the office should not have to rely on the goodwill of the Government ministers to continue in her post. In other words, it is now time for the 2012 act and, in particular, the appointment process to be revisited to ensure that the Parliament as a whole selects and crucially reappoints the SPA chair. The creation of Police Scotland meant that, rather than having eight police commanders, there is now only one. On one hand, that puts all the power in the hands of one individual, and on the other hand, it leaves that individual potentially vulnerable to shoulder all the criticism for the failures within the force. Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that within less than five years Scotland is seeking a third chief constable to fill that post. That hardly inspires confidence in the act's provisions and is, again, a powerful argument for revisiting those provisions. Regardless of the difficulties that it has experienced within Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation has done sterling work in bringing to the fore the issues of concern affecting front-line police officers on a daily basis. Those officers continue to do an outstanding job as the responders of first and last resort despite that their issues of concern have all too often been ignored by the Government. That includes the loss of localism, which has been a feature of the centralised force. Examples of which include the introduction of the 101 number and the closure of local police counters and stations, and the centralisation of control lines. More generally, the demands of front-line officers have not been acknowledged or reflected in the Government's crime statistics given only one in five incidents attended by the police results in a crime being recorded. In conclusion, I support the amendment in Liam Kerr's name and call on the cabinet secretary to take responsibility in addressing the problems that the provisions of the legislation have produced. Thank you. I call Michael Matheson to close the Government. Cabinet Secretary, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have listened very closely to a range of the comments that have been made this afternoon. I want to turn to some of the points that have been raised by members in the course of their contribution, although I will not be able to touch upon all of the issues that have been raised and given the limited time that we have available to us. Liam McArthur in his opening statement in this particular debate raised a number of issues from arm policing, stop and search, call handling through to local police plans. I want to pick up on several of those issues. There is no doubt that there was issues of concern raised about how Police Scotland had taken forward its deployment of arm police officers in the early stages of Police Scotland's creation. An issue was raised by John Finane on an on-going basis. I am sure that members would recognise the way in which Police Scotland has gone about dealing with issues relating to arm policing in recent times. It has been very different to that process in the past, recognising that they need to engage much more earlier in considering those issues and to ensure that local elected members have a view on those matters before any final decisions are made. I am sure that members would welcome the way in which Police Scotland has taken that forward. On the matter of stop and search, Liam McArthur made reference to a number of occasions during his speech. The member will recognise that that is an issue that I have taken forward through the expert group that I appointed under John Scott to consider those matters. We are now in a much more robust and effective position as a result of the work that I instructed on that particular matter with regard to how Police Scotland conducts those issues. On the issue of call handling, there is absolutely no doubt that there have been a number of significant issues relating to call handling, but the member will recognise that having instructed HMICS to conduct a deep review of the way in which call handling was being taken forward within Police Scotland, there are a number of recommendations, and 30 recommendations that were set out have been taken forward by Police Scotland in a very consistent methodical way. To the point, there are almost 27 of those recommendations that have now been discharged with the three outstanding ones still to be completed, although good progress has been made on those issues. It is important to highlight that when Police Scotland is making improvements in a system that deals with almost four million calls a year, it is not helpful that it then finds itself being attacked for collating information relating to notable incidents, which is one of the recommendations from HMICS to make sure that where mistakes are made, it will learn from that. To then find themselves being attacked for the very improvements that they are making in it in order to try to make sure that they learn from where mistakes are made is simply not helpful. It is that type of politicisation of policing that does not support police officers and the organisation in trying to drive through those reforms. I have got no time for that, I have got to make progress. On local policing plans, I say to Liam McArthur that that is something that is already taken forward, local policing plans for each local authority area, which allows for engagement through the local scrutiny panels. I turn now to Liam McArthur's point on policing structures. I must confess that the Tories are not in a strong place when it comes to policing structures, given the mess that they have in England and Wales. It was a speech of contradictions when one minute I was talking about how we need to make sure that policing is apolitical, although there is not a day that goes past when he does not tell me that I should roll up my sleeves and get in there and start running the police service. If the member is committed to the idea of being 100 per cent behind police officers and the job that they are doing, supporting a motion here today that is supporting the position of having no confidence in Police Scotland is a very bizarre and strange way in which to go about that. I suspect that the member will come to regret that in due course. I say to Clare Baker's comments regarding Susan Deacon. I think that Susan Deacon is someone who will bring significant leadership to the role of the SPA chair. Although she may feel that she is hamstrung by some of the provisions that she has to operate within at this present time, we will await to see how Susan Deacon gets on in her position as chair, and if she is raising specific issues with me, I will give them due consideration. I can assure Alex Cole-Hamilton that the appointment of Susan Deacon is more than appointing a personality. Susan Deacon was appointed on her ability, and I believe that she has the ability to do the job as well. I can also turn to the issue that Clare Baker raised in relation to the strategic policing plan, and that is why ministers are accountable for that. The member may be referring to strategic policing priorities. The strategic policing priorities that are set down by Government are through a public consultation exercise that takes place over a number of months, and I agree with COSLA. It is launched in partnership with COSLA, setting out what those priorities should be. Localism, protecting local communities is then operationally for the police service and the SPA to make sure that that is then translated into action on the ground. The approach that we took when I redrafted those particular strategic policing priorities was welcomed by COSLA as showing much more commitment to joint working with local authority on those issues. I felt that, in John Finnie's contribution this afternoon, we got a dose of reality, because the strength of our police service here in Scotland is the people within the organisation, the individual police officers and the staff. I see on a daily basis their dedication to our local communities, and I am confident of the strength that we continue to have in the leadership of Police Scotland. I call Willie Rennie to wind up for Liberal Democrats six minutes, Mr Rennie. I saw that the First Minister had taken the trouble this morning to draw attention to an extended tweet from Callum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation. Perhaps our debate today has touched some of our on-air with the First Minister, and I understand that Callum Steele was a strong supporter of the centralisation of Police Scotland and has found it difficult to come to terms with the failings of that reform, but the Scottish Government is responsible for the budget of Police Scotland. Lord Smith did not merge the British Transport Police with Police Scotland, and ministers knew what they were doing when they centralised the police. They knew that they would be required to pay VAT, so there is no point in drawing attention to any other weaknesses with anybody else when the weaknesses are squarely with the Scottish Government. We have been repeatedly told to pipe down, not to ask questions to get behind the Government. Even the acting chief constable tried it at the weekend, but after all the chaos of the last four years, the M9 crash response, armed police on routine duties, the loss of experienced civilian staff, the imposition of an alien target culture, stop and search, the closure of call centres, all that and more. I am glad that we warned about all that. I am glad that we spoke up and I am glad that we were not cowed into silence by the SNP. I have to say that I was amused by Fulton MacGregor's contribution. A poll of SNP members on WhatsApp has found that the SNP Government was doing rather well on the police, not just now. Liam McArthur referred to another attempt to silence us last week. It involves the tragic death of Elizabeth Bow in St Andrews. Liberal Democrat councillor Margaret Kennedy asked for Fife council to receive a report on the case so that it could be debated after Perk found major errors in the handling of Elizabeth's call. This request for a report was denied by the SNP councillor responsible. He referred councillor Kennedy to the BBC iPlayer to watch First Minister's Questions. Watching the BBC iPlayer and First Minister's Questions is no substitute for proper local accountability, and that shows what kind of sham we have with the 2012 act. Police Scotland has a budget of more than £1 billion a year. It is responsible for keeping us safe. I pay tribute to the officers and the work that they do to keep us safe. It deserves proper scrutiny, but this Government has not even given up any of its Government chamber time to debate the state of Police Scotland. It is a party that has led the scrutiny of Police Scotland and the only party that voted against the centralisation. It is now, again, up to us to carve out that time for this to be debated. I have been a long-time critic of the centralisation of the police, but even I did not believe that it would get to this stage. I did not think that the troubles of Police Scotland would endure for the whole four years since it was created and the devastating consequences since. We must conclude that we have no confidence in the structure of Police Scotland. Others have dweld on today quite rightly the problems with Police Scotland over that time, Maurice Corry, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Jackie Baillie, who made a really good contribution, Margaret Mitchell and others. They have identified the failings with Police Scotland, so I am not going to dwell on that. I found John Finnie's defence of the current police structure extraordinary, especially as his two colleagues in the last Parliament voted against the 2012 act. We have our preferred model, a comprehensive, adequately funded policing plan for each local authority area in Police Scotland, developed and agreed by communities and councillors and with the responsibility of a local senior police officer. The membership of the Scottish Police Authority to become Scottish Parliament's appointment on a vote of two thirds of this Parliament in a majority and in a similar way to other commissioners to ensure a balanced and representative authority and to remove the role of the justice secretary in making appointments. The powers of the chief constable should be defined in statute to reflect that the historic tripart structure has been changed and that there is a need for a new democratic checks and balances to be created. The aim is to inject democracy back into our policing. Those are our proposals. We need to build, however, a broader consensus, which is why we proposed the independent commission, and I was pleased that some in the chamber were indicating support for that today. That is the kind of reset that Police Scotland needs. We have no confidence in the current structures and therefore time has come for a change. The reason for the change is clear. Members will recall the turf war between Stephen House and Vic Emery over who was in charge. That was a direct result of flawed legislation. Members will also recall the decision by Stephen House to put armed officers on routine duties without proper scrutiny. There was also the decision by the chief constable to impose detailed targets in a one-size-fits-all, straff-clide writ large approach to policing in Scotland. There is also the Audit Scotland report, which highlighted the weak financial leadership of Police Scotland. We are told that police are accountable to local communities, but you just have to look at the Highlands, where they voted against armed policing on routine duties and were overruled by the chief constable. That is the sham of local accountability. That is why we need change for Police Scotland. We need change to the structures. That is the best way to back our police and back confidence into our police too. That concludes the debate on justice. It is now time to we want the next item of business, a very short suspension, but the front benches take their places.