The next item of business is a debate on motion 4320 in the name of Jamie Greene on tackling violent crime. I'd be grateful for members who wish to speak in the debate, were to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes. Mr Greene. I thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome Mr Brown to the chamber. I suspect his ears have been burning for the last two hours. I want to start my comments by saying two things about today's debate, which is about a rise in violent crime, if the cabinet secretary will permit me to talk about this important subject. The first thing I want to say is that we, as a chamber, and right across the political spectrum, I think of a huge debt of gratitude to those working on the front line in our justice sector, the various cogs in the wheel, the front line police officers, prison wardens and their staff, who unfortunately are far too often at the end of receiving end of violence and abuse them very cells, but also those who work in our courts are on-call defence solicitors and those in the third sector who try often in vain to support victims of crime through the cumbersome and traumatic experiences and interactions with justice that they face in this country. The second and the most important point in this debate is a real reminder to each and every one of us, because every statistic that I will use today behind that is a real person, a real victim of crime in each and every one of our own communities. I brought this debate to the chamber today because someone had to. There is absolutely no doubt that the Government would not have dreamed of bringing forward these statistics to the chamber to debate it. Violent crime is on the rise here in Scotland. There is no getting away from it. Let's remind the chamber what sort of crimes I am talking about here when I say violent crime. The Government's own statistics include offences such as homicide, attempted murder, serious assault, domestic abuse, domestic violence, violence against children and physical attacks on minority groups. The numbers speak for themselves. Last year, there were 9,842 violent crimes recorded in Scotland. That figure is higher than any other year throughout Nicola Sturgeon's tenure as First Minister.  Nor can you spin your way out of the 65,000 incidents of domestic abuse that took place in Scotland last year—also the highest on record. Nor did sexual assault increase to more than 4,000 last year. Nor did other sexual crimes increase from 2,500 in 2011 to 6,500 last year—a 4,000 increase. The list goes on and on and on. I remind folks that behind every one of those numbers is a victim of a serious crime. The Government's response to that will be predictable. It is always predictable when I raise issues of crime statistics. The cabinet secretary will tell us how reported crime overall is down. On one hand, we are completely failing to acknowledge on the other that the most serious crimes, the most horrific types of crimes that affect people in the most horrific ways and has the biggest impact on their lives are going up, each and every one of them. We never hear an acceptance of those figures from the front bench. We certainly never hear an apology for it either. I ask if anywhere in today's debate we will actually hear from the Government what they are going to do to address this monstrous rise in violent crime in our country. Of course prevention is one area. We do not hear much about that, but enforcement is the other. Let us start with police numbers, which is in my motion. Ladies figures tell us that there are currently 16,805 full-time police officers, a full 691 fewer than before the SNP created Police Scotland. It is actually at the lowest level since 2008. I want to share with the cabinet secretary first what the SPF chairman, David Hamilton, said about declining officer numbers. He said that it is a detriment to the public at large and that police are now scrabbling around trying to keep the wheels on the bus. Scrabbling around in his words, not mine. Not at all helped by the absolute cliff edge that we now face with the exodus of retiring police officers, something that has also gone unaddressed. The predictable answer and comment from the minister on police numbers, which is what we always hear, is to talk about another force in another place, in another Parliament, which I have to say is no comfort whatsoever to Scottish police officers sitting in leaky buildings with out-of-date IT systems, no body-worn cameras and rising mental health problems in our police force, no comfort whatsoever. Of course, if the police service had actually been given the capital budget allocation that they asked for by the Government, that would have been a good start, so would have been given our courts the budget that they needed, the extra £12 million that they asked for from the Government to tackle the backlog, they did not get that either. What about the legal aid sector, who asked for fees to rise so that they can desperately tackle that unacceptable 43,000 court case backlog? Every justice partner, every cog in that wheel deserves the resources that they need to tackle the very sort of crimes that I am debating today. All of this is an entirely devolved matter, end of it, and it is about time that the SNP accepted that. I want to ask the Government if they have full confidence in its current strategy on tackling crime. These are political policy-driven decisions of the Government. It is a strategy on automatic early release, the presumption against short sentences and the increased drive to divert from prison through community sentencing. All fine, but these come with their own philosophical and moral controversies. I asked the First Minister last week if she has full confidence in these policies, and she does. The next question is whether the public share that confidence. The victims of crime that I speak to do not. They say, is it too much to ask for? Is it too much to ask for to give them a voice? Is it too much to ask for the Government for fairness? Does the quarter of a million hours of community sentences written off by the Government's sound fare to them? No, it does not. Does the 670,000 hours, which are yet to be carried out, sound fare to victims? No, it does not. The public will only have confidence in alternatives to prison. If those alternatives are meaningful, if they are proportionate and they are actually carried out. When you consider that crimes such as rape, homicide and domestic abuse are caught up in these sentences, I challenge the Government to speak to the victims of those crimes and have a frank discussion about fairness. Does that sound fair? The whole system stinks to high heaven in the words of a victim that I met last week. If the SNP spent more time listening to victims of crime, then they might be more contrite in the responses to debates like this. My final point in today's short debate is a challenge to the Government. I am bringing forward a victim's bill, currently under consultation. There are two parts to that bill—Susan's law and Michelle's law. Both of those are repeatedly promised by Cabinet Secretary. Humza Yousaf promised us that he would deliver those. The SNP manifesto promised that he would deliver them. Where are they, Cabinet Secretary? The title of today's debate is tackling violent crime. I want the Government benches to respond to the substance of that debate in its comments. I want them to spell it out what it is doing to tackle the rise of violent crime. You must conclude, Mr Greene. The what and the how. No excuses, no deflections, because victims of crime deserve nothing less. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Keith Brown to speak to and move amendment 430.2 up to six minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by reflecting that the motion from the Conservatives conflicts of course with this Parliament's majority position supporting the new justice vision that is launched in February this year. It also fails to acknowledge that Scotland is a safer country under this Government. Scotland is a safer country under this Government. The overall level of crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974. Scotland has experienced a fall of 46 per cent since 2008 and 2009. Homicide cases are at their lowest level since comparable records began in 1976. I have heard from Jamie Greene, who, unfortunately, would not take an intervention from me, that accuracy in those figures is very important. Last year, I was accused by Russell Finlay, who sits here, of having misled Parliament in figures on homicide. He said that I was staggeringly wrong and irresponsible, disrespecting victims and their families. He said that I just paroted duff information fed to me by advisers and that I must do the right thing and say sorry. I say to him, does he want to stand up just now and I'll take an intervention and repeat that charge or does he want to apologise for it? I'm happy to let him come in if you'd like to do so. Indeed, thank you for inviting me to make an intervention. It's news to me. I'll have to go back and look into what you're saying and if indeed that's correct, I'll come back to you. I'm happy to pass on the press statement. It was on three pages of popular newspapers and it was also repeated by two of his colleagues, so it would be interesting. One of his colleagues has already refused either to repeat the charge in the chamber or to apologise, so hopefully Russell Finlay will have the experience and the ability, the honour to do that. The proportion of adults who experience in crime has decreased with adults in Scotland less likely to experience crime than those in England and Wales in 1920. It's odd isn't it that Jamie Greene does not want comparisons with what the Tonys actually do when they're in government? Let's have a wee look. I know they don't want to hear this and it's difficult for them, but let's have a look at the way that the Tonys approached crime. Boris Johnson said that there was a 14 per cent reduction in crime. He was corrected by the ONS and others who said that there was a 14 per cent increase. He and quasi-cartang then basically said that those were victims of fraud and they were talking about crimes that really affect people, as if fraud does not affect people. I have not got much time, but if it's a brief intervention. I remember now the exact information that you referred to and it was due to Duff information that we received from Police Scotland who duly phoned me at the weekend on a Sunday to tell me that it was incorrect, so on the basis of the wrong information that we received, I am, if I've repeated that and it's incorrect, I do apologise. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport. I commend Russell Finlay for that apology and it's received in the spirit that was given. The Conservative motion highlights police numbers and I am happy to confirm again to the chamber that police officer numbers per head of population are higher than they are in England and Wales, where the Tonys have got the choice to do something about that, and the number of officers significantly higher than when this Government took office in 2007. Jamie Greene asks about what we intend to do. Our public health approach to tackle violence recognises that violence is a symptom that is often accompanied with a complex mix of social harms, including problem substance use, adverse childhood experiences, trauma and poor mental health and those that are on the criminal justice committee who had the opportunity as I did today to visit the wise group in Glasgow will know exactly what those things mean if they met the prisoners and former prisoners that I met this morning. We will publish the first-ever national violence framework later this year, which will identify priorities for all partners to work towards making Scotland's community safer for everyone. I know that there is a great deal more to do. I am not saying that the justice system is perfect by any means, but we will strive to deliver a just, safe, resilient Scotland. That is the purpose of the justice vision. We are also committed to taking action to address violence against women and girls and I can assure Jamie Greene that I talk very frequently to victims of rape and sexual assault to hear the stories that they have to tell their experience and we are committed to making sure that we do not repeat the failures of the justice system in that relation. That is why the work of the women's justice leadership panel, which is convened by Ash Reagan in relation to some of those issues, will be absolutely crucial in furthering our understanding of gender competency and cultural change, which is required in our justice system. I will also consider each of the recommendations set out in Bannis, Helena Kennedy's report on the misogyny working group. We intend to consult on draft legislation to address gaps in the law that could be addressed by a specific criminal offence to tackle misogynistic behaviour. Events this week probably show us why action is needed in that area. We also know that we have more to do to ensure that victims are placed at the heart of justice processes where victims and survivors are seen as a person first and not seen as they sometimes are as a piece of evidence. That should not be happening. More than 20 organisations have received awards from the new victim-centred approach fund in this financial year, many for the first time, to ensure that victims and survivors have access to practical and emotional support services that are joined up and trauma informed. In addition, more than £250,000 is also being awarded from the victims surcharge fund to provide practical help to victims. We are not only investing in support services for victims, but we will shortly publish a consultation on potential legislative reforms to the justice system to strengthen the rights and improve the experience of victims of crime. The consultation has been informed by the work of the victims task force and the recommendations of Lady Dorian's review. That will be one step on the road for the progressive minds of this Parliament to put in place the necessary legislative framework to support major transformation across the justice sector. Finally, for nearly 15 years, this Government has delivered bold, effective justice reforms with a firm focus on early intervention, prevention and rehabilitation. During that time, we have seen large falls in the number of young people ending up in the criminal justice system. Fewer people are experiencing violent crime and Scotland's reconviction rates are now at one of the lowest levels in the past 22 years. Jamie Greene says that the figures that I never mentioned, we never hear those figures mentioned by the Conservative Party. The more we support people with convictions as they serve their sentences, whether in prison or in their communities, the more we can reduce re-offending and thereby help to keep crime down and communities safe. I do not have time, unfortunately. We must rethink how we use custody in Scotland. Our bail and release consultation was a first step in a wider discussion about how custody should be used in a modern, progressive Scotland. It sought views on how to refocus the use of remand within the criminal justice system and how we can improve opportunity for the successful reintegration of people leaving prison. Responses to the consultation have informed the detail of the legislation that we will shortly bring to Parliament for scrutiny. I look forward to that debate and discussions with members across the chamber in considering the most effective support and settings to address the causes of crime. Let me conclude by highlighting once again the strong support for the Scottish Government strategy endorsed by the national justice board of justice organisations that secured the support of the chamber back in February. I will continue to work with those that believe in an evidence-based support. I am happy to move the amendment in my name. I now call on Pauline McNeill to speak to a move amendment 4320.1 up to five minutes. Thank you. I move the amendment in my name. The Tory motion has a lot of important issues packed into it, and it is impossible to address the series issues in five minutes. There is a lot we do agree with, but we do believe that robust alternatives to custody are important. In fact, this morning, the Visit to the Wise group, where we saw their through-care programme making sure that the revolving door into offending is something that we can clearly do something about. However, I want to focus on three themes in the short time that I have. It is concerning, and I do agree with the Conservative benches on this, that police numbers have fallen to the lowest level in 14 years, something that the cabinet secretary is not at least contradicting. However, what is even more concerning, and as Jamie-Gene did allude to this in his opening remarks, is that the police offer a trial rate that is expected to be 70 per cent higher due to the McLeod judgement, which has the effect of officers aged 50 with 25-year service, with no financial incentive to complete to their normally 30-year service. Reports are alarming, but they suggest that figures of around 1,600 officers of all ranks will seek early retirement on that basis. It is arguably the single biggest blow to the Scottish Police Service, and it is time that we started talking about the impact that this can have. Some have said that significant experience officers will go, but the low morale has also been cited as a factor driving officers towards seeking early retirement. We must have more discussion on that. Police Scotland is already operating under challenging circumstances in the context of having lost more than 140 police stations over the past decade. However, I want to comment specifically on the crime figures, and, as we have discussed many times in this chamber, violent crimes against women. I stand at one with the cabinet secretary on this particular issue. He will know that, between 31 March last year and this year, sexual assaults rose by one-third. Those are staggering figures. It is on this issue that we all need to work together and use this parliamentary session to reverse the trend of these crimes against women. At the criminal justice committee, we heard testimony from women who have been the victims of sexual violence and say that, as victims, they feel treated as criminals. That is something that we cannot forget. That is why Scottish Labour wants to look at how we balance the support for victims in the court process. There should be one point of contact in the court system and one for police with victims. It is the only answer that I can see. How do we make that happen? Do we need to legislate whether there are other ways that we can bring that about? We also need to broaden the scope of circumstances in which victims of sexual offences are given free legal assistance beyond the scope of the trawl of a complainer's medical records, which is a narrow point of which they can get legal aid at the moment. We want to explore a one-stop-shop for victims and also what on-going support, because we certainly cannot go on like this, because what we heard in that testimony is not unusual. We call on the Government to bring forward some proposals or at least discuss that on a cross-party basis. I also want to talk about the fatal accident inquiry shocking statistics. I agree with Jamie Greene on that point. 54 deaths in custody in 2021. The figure has more than doubled since 2015. Only six weeks ago, in HNP Adewill, Campbell Ingalls died alone in his cell from Covid after reportedly pleading for help from prison officers for four days, and he was only 34 years old. Last October, I asked for a public inquiry into the death of Alan Marshall, who died in Stockton prison in 2015 after being restrained by prison officers. He was in remand due for release, and a fatal accident inquiry in British Sheriff Court ruled his death was entirely preventable. The average length of time it took to conclude a fatal accident inquiry in 2021 was almost three years. Totally unacceptable. If we all agree that it's unacceptable, we must use this Parliament to act on this particular point. If families have to get justice, we must reduce the time scales. The independent review of death in prison custody that we debated last year said that there should be unfettered access after a death in custody by an independent body. I know that the Cabinet Secretary in response said that the Government would either look or enact these changes. What I would like to know and summing up is where are we with that? If we don't have something in place that changes the course of this, then we have failed to give justice to these families. I recall Liam Kerr choosing to kick off his time as a Tory justice spokesperson in the last session of Parliament. By leading a debate on restorative justice, Mr Kerr's speech that day managed to strike a progressive and a conciliatory consensual chord with colleagues right across the chamber. Back in those relatively halcyon days, with David Gawke in the justice brief at the UK level, Conservatives seemed less obsessed with whether or not justice was hard or soft, but rather whether it was actually effective. Sadly, Mr Kerr's incarnation as a progressive justice reformer proved to be a case of mistaken identity. For crimes against the Tory party orthodoxy, Mr Gawke has been dispatched to the Gulag, allowing ministerial code-breaker Pretty Patel to install herself as the new sheriff in town. I fear that rough justice all-round. I thank Jamie Greene for allowing the chamber a further opportunity to discuss justice issues. I associate myself very much with the gratitude that he expressed for all those working in and across our justice system. I agree with him about many of the challenges that are facing our justice sector, including the rise in violent crime, the appalling rates of domestic abuse and sexual violence and a fall in police numbers on the SNP's watch, to which I would add, as Pauline McNeill's amendment does, concerns over record court backlogs, solicitors leaving legal aid practice in droves and a prison estate busting at the seams in a desperate need of modernisation. However, I cannot accept as much of Mr Greene's analysis of what needs to be done in response. By locking up even more of Scotland's population—something that we already do to a greater extent than any other country in Europe, but which seems to fall short of the number that Mr Greene and his colleagues seem to feel is appropriate—we will not be making victims, communities or society safer. Quite the reverse, as all the international evidence shows. Where we are currently failing is not in the numbers that we are not locking up, but what we do or do not do with prisoners when they are inside and after release. I will give way to Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson I am very grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if he would agree with me that the war of numbers that happens to those benches is unsatisfactory because that masks what the numbers we should be looking at. Why is a third of a non-crisodial census unsuccessful? How can we make it more effective? Sorry, Mr Johnson. If in future you could face the— Apologies. Thank you very much. Liam McArthur I certainly agree with him. Help to reduce the likelihood of re-offending and increase the likelihood of making a positive contribution within communities is not always available in the way that it should. Of course, there will always be those for whom the only option in terms of public safety is incarceration. However, far too many of those in our overcrowded prison estate are, or there certainly should be, more effective alternatives. To be effective, community-based measures need to be properly resourced, and courts need to have confidence in them. That cannot be done on the cheap, but the alternative of prison is usually more expensive and counterproductive. As I have said in previous debates, we have a particular problem in relation to the remand, including among those pre-trial. We have seen little progress on that, and the court backlogs, as Pauline McNeill indicated, have made the situation worse. Those backlogs also undermine the confidence of victims whose experience of a justice system is all too often a negative one. Our justice system does not lack for challenges. Further reform is needed in places that are urgent and profound reform. Our FAI system, for example, is not fit for purpose and should be overhauled, while the dual role of the Lord Advocate is no longer sustainable. The Scottish Liberal Democrats support the broad approach that is being taken by the Scottish Government. However, too often, the Government seems happy to legislate and stand back, put in some money and pat themselves on the back, all of which may be necessary but is not sufficient to embed the meaningful and lasting reform that our justice system is crying out for. The Liberal Democrats will back the Government motion and the Labour amendment, but will continue to press ministers to deliver on the rhetoric and the ambition to create a justice system that is progressive and effective in meeting the needs of those who rely on it, as well as those who work in it. I am honoured to contribute to today's debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and fully support the motion put forward by my colleague Jamie Greene. Time and time again, we come into this chamber and help to see witness votes passed by the SNP and the Green Coalition that side with criminals at the expense of victims. We see this in several areas of our justice system. Prisoners convicted of custodial sentences have been given the vote. We have been urged to use terms like persons with convictions instead of convicted criminals. By giving all prisoners, including the prisoners, a free mobile phone while serving time in prison. At a cost of £3.2 million to taxpayers, those are just a few examples, but sadly I could go on. That simply is not good enough for the Scottish Government. The Scottish Conservatives want to see victims at the heart of our justice system. The year 2020-2021 recorded the largest year-on-year rise in domestic abuse charges since comparable records began in 2013. In more than 500 serious assaults and attempted murder charges, a domestic abuse element was recorded. The punishment for offences of this nature are weak. Nine of those serious assaults faced no action, and 106 violent criminals convicted of domestic abuse received a community sentence. We know that more than a quarter of a million hours of worth of unpaid community work given to criminals has been written off, with more than 650,000 hours of unpaid work yet to be carried out. Other notable figures such as that of 26 people going on to commit domestic abuse while being released on bail and last year's record high level of more than 65,000 incidents of domestic abuse show that evidently the repercussions are not enough to drive down the number of incidents. Yet, incredibly, the SNP Government wants to send less people to prison and make it even easier for judges to award bail. A victim contacted me about her ex-partner, who has been charged for violent crimes ranging from domestic abuse, attempted murder and is engaged in repetitive cycle of being awarded bail. Violating the conditions and then being granted bail again, some of the cases are likely to spiral out of control the longer the dispute between the Scottish Government and a legal profession continues. The dispute under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2018 is delaying justice for the victims and allowing some violent criminals to roam the streets while awaiting trial. I welcome that the cabinet secretary is open to discussion on how to combat concerning rise in domestic abuse, but that does not change the simple fact that something must be done now. In conclusion, we have a Scottish Government unwilling to hear the asks of the legal profession and a justice system that has repeatedly failed to punish those who are at a danger to society, while, quite frankly, does not translate to a system that delivers justice. If the Scottish Government seeks to deliver a justice strategy, it must start by resolving its dispute with a legal profession to avoid further delays to domestic abuse victims getting justice, committing to create a true deterrent to protect potential victims of domestic abuse such as a domestic abuse register and acknowledging that punishment remains an important part of criminal justice system by backing our victim law. Yesterday, two events drew my attention, both relevant in their own way to this afternoon's justice debate. The first was the Queen's speech that outlined the UK Government's plans to cut crime. The second, perhaps more pleasurable, was attending the Scottish Prison Art and Creative Enterprise event here in the Scottish Parliament, showcasing the art and creative work of prisoners. The range of work displayed was inspiring and humbling, reflecting a rich body of creative talent in our prisons. I will return to both those points, but firstly, today's motion, a list of non-contextualised random statements extolling the woes of violent crime, police numbers, underfunding, community sentencing, bail and release, and dangerous criminals. However, that is serious, and I want to pick up on a couple of points. The motion refers to violent crime being at its highest level in a decade. As we have already heard, according to the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, crime in Scotland is down 40 per cent since 2007 and at one of the lowest levels since recording began. I will come back if I have got time at the end. However, let's look at homicide. The Scottish Government national statistics publication on homicide records 55 homicides in Scotland in 2021, a decrease of 10 from the previous year and the lowest number since comparable data became available. By contrast, in England, there were 691 homicides recorded in the same period, an increase of 14 per cent on the previous year. Turning to police funding, despite the cuts from its central budget from Westminster, Scotland has around 32 officers per 10,000 population compared to around 23 in England and Wales. They are also better paid in England, and officer starting salary is around 21,500, compared to almost 27,000 in Scotland. On police numbers, in the Queen's speech, we heard all about the UK Government commitment to put 20,000 extra police back on the streets. What was omitted was that they were simply replenishing the 22,000 officers the UK Government cut in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019. At the motion refers to bail and release, and, as Pauline McNeill mentioned, only this morning members of the Criminal Justice Committee visited the WISE group and heard powerful testimony about the life-changing and life-saving through-care work of mentors supporting people serving short-term sentences. We heard that, and I quote, people want to change, they just don't know how. Mentors inspire to help others aspire. In the case of one person reflecting on his own childhood and pathway into prison, it was just always going to happen. My thanks to Charlie Martin and all at the WISE group for hosting the committee. Contrast this with the narrative in yesterday's Queen's speech about tagging burglars, robbers and thieves, putting rapists behind bars and pinning criminals to the scene of their crime. Hardly a contemporary 21st century approach, more life on Mars, and not a shred of mention of prevention that Jamie Greene mentioned earlier, and no mention of Covid. Not for one second can we diminish the challenges that justice sector faces. I welcome the new vision for justice that sets out our contemporary and wide-ranging strategy that has trauma informed and, more importantly, trauma responsive approaches and the needs of victims at its heart. Given the results across Scotland last Friday, it seems that the people of Scotland do too. To conclude earlier, I mentioned Scottish prison art and the therapeutic opportunities that provides prisoners. I draw on the words of Professor Fergus McNeill, who said, if imprisonment and release are to be crafted around unlocking potential and transforming lives, then we need creativity to be at the heart of the process, reaching into prisons to support personal change and reaching out of prisons to support social change.  To be followed by Daniel Johnson. In this chamber, I believe we should be candid. Protecting people from violent crime is a priority for any government and yet, under this SNP government, the rights of criminals are now prioritised over victims and violent crime has risen to the highest level since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister. As well as the damage suffered by victims and the growing strain on our police and justice system, violent crime adds pressures faced by our front-line doctors and nurses. According to the charity Medics Against Violence, which is part funded by the Scottish Government, treating the consequences of violence in Scotland costs an estimated £400 million a year, and that's just the NHS costs. For £100 million a year, that's equivalent to employing around 12,000 additional nurses. £400 million, more than the anticipated budget, to build a new Monklands hospital. £400 million, well, that's two ferries under this SNP government. I'm not suggesting that any government can achieve zero levels of violent crime, but in terms of NHS resources alone, the Government's soft touch policies are piling more pressure on services. Let's just consider the numbers. An ambulance call out costs on average £244, attendance at A&E, £190, surgery at least £3,000 and admission to hospital is about £570 each day. I remember being called down to A&E because a young man was stabbed in the abdomen. He was dying, blood pressure dropping, drifting in and out of consciousness. His knife wound was only about two centimetres, but it's the internal damage. We had to perform an emergency laparotomy at midnight. The consultant and I had to cut him right open, and we found pulled blood, feces and engorged small bowel. We had to search through and find all the bits of bowel that had lacerations and cuts, and we had to resect—that's take out that entire section—over three hours of operating, hands deep in his abdomen. It was touch and go, but he survived. But at what cost? We're seeing more and more assaults on NHS staff—13,000 in the past year, with over 7,000 of these being physical assaults—while the Scottish ambulance service recorded 146 assaults. This is totally unacceptable.   Back in September, the Cabinet Secretary for Health asked patients to think twice before calling an ambulance. Well, maybe the SP Government should be telling thugs to think twice before resorting to violence. But what does it do? Prisoners with sentences of 12 months or less convictions that can include murder, rape and domestic abuse—well, this SP Government gives them the vote. This is a highly charged debate, and it should be because the people we represent across the length and breadth of Scotland deserve to feel safe. They deserve the assurance that those who seek to do them harm will be dealt with firmly. A firm response is also a deterrent. If you do not agree, try going to an A&E department on Friday night and explain your reasoning to the doctors and nurses mopping up the mess. Government must support the police adequately. It must remove violent crime from society and the criminals from society until it is safe for their return, and it has a duty to improve support for victims of crime. Victims should never be treated as an afterthought in our justice system. That is all common sense. It is not the property of any single political party. I do hope that sense will prevail and that members will support Jamie Greene's motion. I refer members to my registered interests and I am still a practising NHS doctor. I would like to, at the beginning of my contribution, highlight something that the cabinet secretary said about having no tolerance for misogyny in our justice system. The reports this week were sickening and I put on the record that I believe that no one with those sorts of misogynistic attitudes should have any part in our justice system whatsoever. Justice is complex. In my view, there are three fundamental functions that serve. One is to provide security to our communities and to people. It has to reform behaviour and it must facilitate the payback to communities, but above all it must be trusted. It is not simple. It is not binary choices. Quite frankly, discussing those things in daily male headlines does not help anybody. I think that saying that the Government is prioritising criminals' rights over victims does not make any progress at all, nor does claiming that ever-increasing sentences is the fix for our justice system. I say to the Government that neither do glybphases, hiding behind being progressive or thinking that somehow the presumption against short sentencing means that we have a progressive justice system. We do not. Likewise, it does not help to essentially have a trade-off or a discussion or an auction around police numbers because it is not just about the numbers. You ask any police officer serving today about the 17234 number and they hate it because it is not about the absolute numbers, it is about the investment and the systems that lie behind them that help them to do their work. The creation of Police Scotland completely failed to put those things in place by coming back to the points on prisons. If increasing sentences, putting more and more people away, worked, USA would be a crime-free country and I think that we all know that it is not. It also is based on a false rationalisation, thinking that criminals go around wondering how long they might get for a particular crime and making choices based on that. That is utter nonsense. That is not how people think, it is not how criminals think and so it is an utterly false and bunk choice. I think that Audrey Nicholl described Jamie Greene's contributions as being a slew of uncontextualised numbers and that is quite correct because ultimately Jamie Greene and none of the other Conservatives presented the numbers but provided no analysis of what they sought to do about it. I am happy to take an intervention, Jamie Greene. The context is here, in black and white, on this table.  That is the context, Mr Johnson. Those statistics are bad but they come up with a solution. What are the alternatives? I tell you the thing that he should have been highlighting far more in his speech, which he is right about and I think was highlighted by Liam McArthur, which is why is criminal community justice not working properly? Why has there not been an increase in use of community sentences by sentences? Why do a third of people not complete them and why do almost a quarter of those end up in the other category in terms of what happens when they don't complete? What we need to be doing is focusing on justice that works, looking at why there are issues in the justice system. Why is it the case that Aberdeen, 60 per cent of sentences handed out by sentences are non-custodial? In Edinburgh, it is only 20. It is because they do not trust community sentences and lack of understanding by sentences. Fundamentally, as Liam Kerr pointed out, there has been a failure to invest in non-custodial sentences. Only £1,800 per non-custodial sentence compared to the £37,000 that we spend putting someone in prison each year. Finally, and briefly on the police, we cannot focus on numbers. The reality is that, despite the increased numbers in the creation of Police Scotland, there are less police to respond to incidents than there were under the old police forces. The failure to invest in systems, equipment and capital has hamstrung our police and they end up chasing their tales. Let's end the auction of police numbers and get behind our police so that they can do their jobs properly. First of all, I thank Daniel Johnson and Liam McArthur. I do not give you everything that he said, but they were nuanced and thoughtful and not just simply tabloid headlines. That deserves so much more. We were in a war crime zone, but figures from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey show that just 11.9 per cent of people experienced crime in Scotland in 2019-20. That is bad enough, but that is compared with 20.4 per cent in 2008-2009. It is also lower than the equivalent figures in England and Wales. I was also interested in Sir Keir Starmer. I listened to him at responding to the Queen's speech and he said of justice in England, that fraud has become commonplace with 7 million incidents a year and Britain routinely ripped off. However, the business secretary has suggested that it does not even count as a crime. This has been referenced already. Fraud is just the tip of the iceberg.  The overall charge rate stands a pathetic 5.8 per cent, meaning that huge swathes of serious offences such as rape, knife crime and theft have effectively been decriminalised. That is of the English justice system. I take no delight in saying that. None of us wants this to happen, but that is the record as it stands from a former senior prosecutor in England. I want to turn to other facts. I ask myself how many chief constables does England have. It is around 236. How many police commissioners? At least 31. For me, they are all well salaried and there are too many chiefs. We streamlined policing to focus on front-line officers. One chief, lots more Indians.  However, I want to refer in passing, if I may just progress a little, to the nature of policing in Scotland that has changed over the 50s and 60s. A great deal that was referenced by Sandish Gilhane's speech to some extent is that it is dealing with social issues, addiction and mental health issues that take up a great deal of police time. It is not something that we would headline as crime, but it is something that requires sometimes, and quite often, two officers on the scene. We have to look at the overall problem that we have with the social disruption that happens. I want to comment on a couple of other issues that are not raised and I think that they are important. I hope that they are not particularly political, because they are a fact. Listen first. Serious organised crime, because serious organised crime knows no boundaries. However, the UK has lost access to the shengen information system, known as CIS. It failed to negotiate a replacement for CIS, meaning that our police forces do not have access to Europe-wide real-time alerts and notices. Scotland has also lost access to European arrest warrant, which allowed those accused of the most serious crimes that we have brought back to Scotland to face justice in a matter of ours. I will let you know on this point, because, as an example, there was a Polishman who murdered Alasie in Scotland. Using the European arrest warrant within ours, they not only got him, but they got his clothing, which had the DNA of that unfortunate Alasie on it. It is not just the person who is getting the evidence. We have lost that immediacy by losing the European arrest warrant. Now, there is a substitute, but it is cumbersome. Not all the European nations subscribe to 10 EU members who have declared that they will never surrender their nationals to the UK due to their constitutional rules. That is important stuff, because if you are in heavy duty crime, you are not just operating in Scotland or England or Wales or Northern Ireland. You are operating internationally, and that was key to success. If the member could wind up, please. I am afraid that I will have to allow it to take somebody. No, if the member could wind up now. Oh, right. Finally, very briefly, on victims, because I meant to come to the maximum picture. I must ask you to conclude now. I haven't forgotten them. I will put down in a writing what I have to say about victims as I've run out of time in this short debate. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Rona Mackay. There are 37 chief constables in England, not that I think it's relevant to the motion. That is not a point of order. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Rona Mackay. Violent crime is a serious problem, and it's a problem that blights many lives. I know from my work in and with the women's movement that this form of crime is often gendered, a way of men exerting power over women. We see it also in the corporate negligence that leads to all too many deaths, and we see it in the racism that is endemic in our society. It is a form of crime that we should all condemn. But it is important that we understand the causes of crime. If we understand the causes of crime, we can better understand how to tackle crime. The evidence is very clear. The higher the level of inequality in our society, the higher the level of crime. That is why we cannot solve the problems of crime without addressing poverty and inequality. The work of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson set out in devastating detail how closely related levels of violent crime are to inequality. That is why, for as long as we have a Westminster Government acting consistently to increase inequality through measures like the increase in national insurance contributions, we are fighting an uphill battle to reduce violent crime. We know that inequality drives a wide range of other social problems, too, so equality is good for everyone. Our policy approaches to justice must reflect that, and that is why a whole-government approach here is necessary. The Labour amendment rightly points to the role of violence reduction units in tackling violent crime. Key here, though, is that it is not an enforcement-led approach, but one that understands the contexts in which people live. That must be central to any serious approach to reducing violent crime. Creating a culture where men are not violent to women—a culture that gives people opportunities and hope, rather than driving them to substance misuse—and a culture where community and individual health and safety are taken seriously—will be much more effective at reducing violent crime than the measures that were championed by Jamie Greene. So what is to be done? We need to have more space, time and support in public services for the sort of innovation that led to the VRUs. We know that supporting early years can have lifelong benefits, including reducing offending and the propensity to be a victim of crime. We know that interventions such as circles of support and accountability can help offenders to avoid re-offending. We know that the work of initiatives such as Families Outside can help to resettle offenders and reduce offending. We must find ways to allow public service workers to take these steps. We must find ways to encourage voluntary action to support projects such as Families Outside and circles and so many others. We must also seek a genuine approach to reducing dependence on drugs and the violence associated with the supply of drugs—again, an area where we need co-operation from the UK Government, not the head-in-the-sand castrol approach that they favour. I echo Audrey Nicholl's acknowledgement of the Space Arts Scotland project currently in the exhibition space outside this chamber to quote an artist involved in this creative project. Hope is something that prison steals from you. Art is something that restores the broken mind. We need hope. We need a society-wide approach to reducing inequality. From that, we will flow a reduction in violent crime and so many other benefits. A more equal society is better for everyone. We need to see violent crime as something that happens in a context, something that is a result of our decisions as a society, as well as the actions of offenders. That means that we need to take responsibility for those decisions. The Scottish Government strategy moves us in the right direction, but in a context that we cannot control much of. While I accept Jamie Greene's concern about violent crime, we need to use all of the levers available to us, including those that are controlled by Westminster, not least the levers to reduce poverty and inequality. I hope that Jamie Greene will join us in calls to have those levers devolved to this Parliament. Today's motion from the Conservative Party reads a bit like a hit list of top Tory grumbles, with no coherent thread, just throwing up a multitude of subjects into the air and letting them land to form a motion. I will try to address each area, but with limited time for expanding in detail. First, crime is down 40 per cent since 2006-2007 and at one of the lowest levels since records began in 1974. I will focus on numbers for a minute. Despite cuts from the central budget in Westminster, the Scottish National Party has protected Scotland's police officers with around 32 officers per 10,000 of the population in Scotland, compared to around 23 in England and Wales. Plus, they are the best-paid officers in the UK, with a new constable in Scotland starting in 26,737, compared to 21,654 in England. The 2223 policing budget provides a total investment of over £1.4 billion in 2022-23, and the justice system sees a total investment of £3.1 billion to strengthen front-line services. The motion claims hours of community sentences that have not been written off or not yet carried out, completely ignoring the fact that we are just emerging from a two-year pandemic where it was impossible to carry on business as usual. However, why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Organised crime and domestic abuse are serious problems, of that there is no argument, but the Tories are well aware of on-going work in each area with organised crime high on the list of the Justice Committee priorities and our exemplary record of funding and fighting the scourge of domestic abuse where there is much still to be done. The Tories' tired mantra of soft justice is wearing thin and simply does not wash. There are more than 8,000 people in prison or on remand. Scotland incarcerates more people than any other country in Europe. Do the Tories really want to keep doing that? Have they not moved on from their lock them up and throw away the key thinking? We know that prison does not work for the majority of offenders. The Scottish Government's vision for justice, which was debated in the chamber recently, has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, the legal profession and third sector organisations, who are working towards a far more effective and enlightened justice system. As we have heard this morning, the Justice Committee visited the Wise Group in Glasgow, a through-care mentoring service that works with prison leavers to help them to reintegrate into society and to examine what led them into criminal justice in the first place. They do amazing work and their new routes initiative calls for early intervention, alternatives to custody and simply giving offenders a second chance to have the life that we all aspire to. Also in this chaotic motion, the Conservatives appear to prejudge the forthcoming bail and release bill, which again is welcomed widely by stakeholders. Victims do matter. Our new vision puts victims at the heart of the justice system. I am pleased to see with the move to alternative sentencing that there is an increased investment of £47.2 million for community justice, a crucial part in this transformation. There is no question that dangerous criminals who pose a risk to the public will always be given a jail sentence. That will not change. I think that the Tories know that to be the case, but they are deliberately misinforming the public. The Scottish Government's vision for justice will transform the way justice is done, making it fit for the 21st century. We will ensure that services are person-centred and trauma-informed, focus on early intervention and alternatives to custody for those who are not putting the public at risk. The Tories really should join us in progressing this enlightened vision for justice instead of talking it down. Thank you. We now move to winding up speeches, and I call on Katie Clark. Thank you very much. I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. It is clear that any crime of violence is unacceptable and the levels of violent crime in Scotland are completely and utterly unacceptable. We recognise also the connection between poverty and violent crime, the role of male violence in particular. As Daniel Johnson pointed out, those issues are not simple and not binary. As of January this year, there were approximately 13,400 sheriff court trials outstanding. We know that serious sexual violence makes up about 80 to 85 per cent of crimes that preceded trial in the high court. We also know that the backlog has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. The situation clearly has been impacted by Covid, but we had significant problems in the criminal justice system prior to that. So, while Scottish Labour broadly supports the approach of the Scottish Government, and we recognise that there will probably always be a need for custody and for prison, we are also concerned that over a period of time, the resources have not been put in place for alternatives to custody. I am very pleased that the cabinet secretary met with Wise this morning, as Audrey Nicholl has already advised. As convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, we also met with Wise and those who use those services this morning. We very much welcome the emphasis that the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government are putting on a trauma-informed approach, on a person-centred approach, but also on recognising that the system, as it is at the moment, fails victims. We also support the emphasis on addressing the issues affecting women and girls, in particular the plans to introduce a misogyny law and to implement Dorian's recommendations. As Pauline McNeill said, we also think that the current experiences of the victims of attempted rape and serious sexual assault cannot be allowed to continue, and therefore we are asking the Scottish Government to look at the proposals that we are making to provide non-means-tested advice and representation to such victims from the initial stages of cases. We recognise that there are a range of ways that this would be done, legally it is one of them, but there are other ways, and we would like the opportunity to discuss those issues with the Scottish Government. That is something that rape crisis Scotland is calling for and it is a proposal that comes from the victims themselves. Llyr Mercaitha was correct in saying that alternatives to custody need to be properly resourced. We were told this morning that prison costs £40,000 per individual. However, it is absolutely clear that we are going to have significant changes in resourcing if the Scottish Government's policy, which, as I say, we broadly support, is to become a reality. We welcome much that the Scottish Government has said, but we recognise the half billion cuts in legal aid between 2007 and 2019 are a real challenge that also has to be faced. We look forward to what the Government says in response. As I say, we are broadly sympathetic, but have, as we have indicated, a number of concerns, which I hope that the Government will address in the summation. Thank you. I call on Keith Brown up to five minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As ever today, the debate has been wide-ranging across many of the issues and the challenges that I have always considered face the justice sector. However, it is clear that the contributions have demonstrated on the most part a collective agreement that we have to create a more effective person-centred trauma informed, somebody said trauma responsive justice system, which supports people in recovery in all senses of the word. I highlight one or two, and apologies for not getting through all members that have contributed. Lastly, we heard from Katie Clark and more than happy to have that discussion about what other, in addition to legal aid, could be done in relation to the circumstances that she has been talking about for victims of sexual assault. You will see that that is coming out as being addressed by Lady Dorian's report and we are about to go out to have further discussions on that. I am happy to have a specific discussion on that with herself and with Pauline Mealy, if she wants to do that. I thought that we were a very good contribution from Maggie Chapman, which, as a reminder, is, despite the throwing back and forth of figures about the basis for much of crime in society, which is inequality and poverty. I think that it might have been Rona Mackay that mentioned that the Tories know this to be true. I am not sure that that is true, to be honest. I might disagree with my colleague there, but I do think that Jamie Greene knows these things to be true. There is far more to the context of crime than the tabloid headlines, which is a sum total that we get from the Tories at every juncture. I would also say that I do not have much time. I will give way to Jamie Greene. I do appreciate the intervention in the short time that he has. Those are not tabloid headlines, but people. Every single one of the statistics that I mentioned, the rise of thousands and thousands of cases in recorded defences, behind every one of those, is a victim. That is something that the centre benches have failed to acknowledge or accept in every part of today's debate. If it was the case that the concern for victims was upper most, surely we would have heard condemnation of the way that Boris Johnson in the quasi-cartang have written off the experience of victims of fraud by discounting it as part of the crime figures in England and Wales. I will take it with a pinch of salt. There is a very good contribution from Audranicola, as you expect, as convened the committee and talked about her experience, along with my experience this morning, meeting with the wise group. I agree with much of what Daniel Johnson says. There is a great deal to agree on what he says. Some things, obviously, I would not agree with. I would say to him that he mentioned community justice. We have invested more this year as an increased level of resourcing. I agree with him that one of the reasons is the reluctance of courts, because I am not certain of the quality of the disposal. We acknowledge that. We have done from the start and are working to try and see if he can address that. I should mention again the thanks for the apology that was given by Russell Finlay to the previous charge. I would hope that Craig Hoy would perhaps rethink his unwillingness to do so as well, given that he said the same thing. We will see if he does that. In relation to the Government trying to take on the process of— If you could do it very briefly. Particularly with this technology, just to repeat Mr Finlay's apology, I simply retweeted the tweet that he put on and I apologised for doing something. I thank the member for doing that. I realise that it was very hard to do for various reasons, but it is well done. One thing that was made—a point that was made by Pauline Neil—in relation to police numbers and pensions is a very important point, but she will know as well that the final decision on those pensions, the effect of it when police officers could make decisions came in February this year, and that is why we are facing some of the large numbers that she talked about. She will also know, and I hope that people will acknowledge that it is not just an excuse to say that in order to train people at Tulley Allyn, the police have been prevented from doing that both by Covid and by COP26, so we are now seeing increasing numbers of police officers going through that process. The point that was made about death in custody—I answered that earlier on in portfolio questions, but there is a great deal being done, including the appointment of Jill Emery, who Pauline Neil will know, taking that forward. I am happy to write about that. As to the Conservative approach to that, I have to say, especially the idea that it was wrong for the SNP to give prisoners votes. I do not know if that means that, if the Tories were ever to get the chance, they would reverse the European Convention on Human Rights obligation that we have to give prisoners votes. If they reverse it here, why would they not reverse it down south when it has happened as well? Their colleagues have done that. Of course, the approach is one where they say that they want to have, as they are doing down south, a massive prison building programme. If they want another tabloid headline, it will be more cells and less cell phones, perhaps that is a way for them to go with. The point of its cell phones is that I would hope that they would recognise the fact that the impact that cell phones have had—I am not saying that they were not without the problems—was a response done in short time because of the pandemic, but the response that the cell phones have had for the welfare of prisoners is absolutely crucial. We get a glimpse into what would look like a Tory approach to justice if those things were to be carried out. I must ask you two to wind up, cabinet secretary. In concluding, to reiterate my belief in the direction set out in the justice vision, this is the way to go forward. It is not to say that everything is as it should be. We have not mentioned the extent to which the justice system itself is gendered. We have a lot of challenges in the justice system, but I believe that the justice vision that has been set out, in which there seems to be general agreement among most of the chamber, is the way to go forward. For that reason, I propose the amendment to my name. I am sorry that we cannot support the Labour motion for reasons that I am sure are obvious, but hopefully people will support the amendment to my name. I now call on Russell Findlay to wind up the debate. Thank you very much. This has been a pretty lively afternoon so far. I would like to begin by noting Dr Sandesh Gulhane's vivid account of the damage caused by violent crime, which is at its highest level for a decade. Far too many people suffer lifelong injury and disfigurement, which adds to the burden on Dr Gulhane and his NHS colleagues. I was surprised to hear Audrey Nicol criticising the UK Government for wanting to jail rapists if I understood her correctly, calling this life on Mars. If jailing rapists is wrong then, frankly, it is the SNP who are on a different planet. Daniel Johnson railed about us debating the numbers of police officers' appearance to suggest that some kind of crude measure, when his party's own manifesto, has a number of police officers it's aiming to introduce. If he's going to mischaracterise my remarks like that, could he at least acknowledge the point, and the substantive point, is that we shouldn't be focusing on police numbers, we should be focusing on police investment. At least make a valid political point and point it at the SNP, will you? Russell Findlay? I merely pointed out that the Labour manifesto has a police number in it, and it seemed to odds with the member's comments. I'm going to need to make some... Okay, yes, for you. I thank Russell Findlay for giving way, and I take the point that he made in relation to the part of my speech about the comments around rapists. The point that I was making was about the lease of language, not the context of it. Russell Findlay? Thank you. The cabinet secretary's amendment references government's vision for justice, which I believe blurs the lines between criminals and victims, and that brings me on to how the justice system deals with crimes against women and girls. The cabinet secretary's amendment also concedes that more needs to be done to quote, address violent crime and improve the experiences of women in the justice system.   Jordana Rutherford was 17 when she was beaten unconscious by her then partner, who left her unconscious and lying in a pool of blood. She attempted to take her own life, and it took two years for her attacker to be found guilty of inflicting injury and permanent disfigurement, but he was not sent to prison, instead being ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work. Jordana Rutherford told the Daily Record that some victims are deterred from reporting what happens to them. She asks, what's the point of this if abusers are not punished? I've already had girls message me to say that they won't come forward. In their words, it's pointless and stressful for nothing to be done about the crimes they've committed. Jordana's ordeal is shocking but not unusual. Anne-Marie Herdman suffered regular violence at the hands of her police officer partner for six years. She feared she would be killed, but when he was found guilty he was not sent to prison, instead being given 250 hours community service. That's 250 hours for a rain of violence spanning more than 52,000 hours. Right now, there are women like Jordana and Anne-Marie trapped in the justice system, suffering relentless revictimisation. When, or if, they finally secured a conviction, the resultant sentence may come as a very painful surprise. The cabinet secretary's stock answer is that all sentencing is down to the independent judiciary, which is true and just as it should be, but it's his Government that's finding ever more inventive ways of not sending violent criminals to prison and also releasing them early.  Of course, the cabinet secretary does not sentence criminals, but his Government makes the laws and legal frameworks and imposes its expectations on the justice apparatus from the top down. The reducing Scotland's prison population is welcomed by all. Like the cabinet secretary this morning, I also heard about the incredible work being done to reduce re-offending during a visit to the wise group in Glasgow. However, the Government's undue haste to reduce prisoner numbers sometimes feels like a social experiment and one in which female victims such as Jordana and Anne-Marie are the guinea pigs. As Anne-Marie puts it, sometimes it feels that nothing is done until a person has been severely beaten or murdered. I would have liked to have concluded with a few words on organised crime, but, unfortunately, time is pretty much against us. However, finally, I urge members to back Jamie Greene's motion today. Thank you. That concludes the debate on tackling violent crime. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 4345 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on Stephen Kerr to move the motion. I move that motion, but I wish to make a point of order subsequent to this business. Thank you. We will proceed with this first. Thank you, Mr Kerr. No member is asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 4345 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I make this point of order. That business motion was for next week's business, but we will be made aware of the events during our first party business debate, where the transport minister revealed that the Scottish Government had published a document that supposedly fills in the blanks relating to the ferry contract fiasco. At this fiscal route, it is the same document that Audit Scotland was unable to find. However, the email does not answer Audit Scotland's question as to why advice was ignored, but it does do something else. Despite the First Minister's desperate attempts to pin everything on her former colleague Derek Mackay, the publication implicates the Deputy First Minister John Swinney. We know that Mr Swinney had a direct hand in this. We know that now. I would like to request that you call an emergency meeting of the bureau after decision time tonight with a view to adding in a ministerial statement from the Deputy First Minister tomorrow explaining his role in this matter, because Parliament deserves answers. Thank you, Mr Kerr, for his point of order. The members will indeed be aware of the on-going scrutiny of this matter in other aspects of parliamentary business. Under rule 13.2, requests for urgent statements are not a matter for the bureau. Mr Kerr would require to request that the Government make a statement and the Government would then ask that I allow time for such a statement to take place. This issue can of course be discussed once more at the bureau next week. I now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 4346 on approval of an SSI, and I ask Stephen Kerr on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. Thank you, Mr Kerr, for the question on this motion at decision time. The next item is approval of SSIs, and I ask Shona Robison on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to speak to and move motion 4300 on approval of an SSI. We have worked at PACE over the last two months since the sponsorship schemes were announced by the UK to understand what is needed and to respond to issues as they have arisen whilst the scheme develops. The three instruments laid today will work together to increase the options for safely housing those fleeing the illegal war in Ukraine. Alongside those being taken forward by Neil Gray, we are tabling these instruments urgently as significant numbers of displaced people are now arriving. Applications are now turning into visas and people are travelling here. The Scottish Government is determined to ensure safe accommodation options are in place for them. The SSI, amending the private landlord registration, will exempt people offering their second homes for free as part of the homes for Ukraine scheme from having to register under landlord registration. That is just for people who are offering second homes through this scheme and have no intention of becoming landlords. The purpose of this is to simplify the process and reduce the administrative burdens and costs that would face by hosts taking part in the scheme who have generously offered their homes. Attracting second home owners to offer their properties through the scheme is helpful as a whole property offer attractive housing solutions for larger families, for example. Ultimately, the change is to help increase the number of properties being offered through the scheme and support the displaced people of Ukraine. I move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. Neil Gray, to speak to and move motion 4301 on approval of an SSI. This amendment order is intended to complement the Police Act criminal records homes for Ukraine sponsored scheme Scotland amendment regulations 22 also before Parliament together. They will ensure that the rules on self-disclosure and state disclosure of convictions are aligned to support the safety of those persons fleeing the war in Ukraine by enabling enhanced disclosure checks to be carried out on all individuals offering to provide accommodation to them under the homes for Ukraine scheme. In the private sector, different types of housing can be considered as suitable housing options as part of the scheme, including individuals offering spare rooms within their own homes and individuals offering whole properties such as second homes, holiday lets and empty homes. The instruments also take into account of the immigration status of displaced persons arriving in the UK through the homes for Ukraine scheme. The amendments in this order substitute previous amendments made by an order approved by this Parliament in March of this year to reflect the developed policy position that any individual offering up to provide accommodation under the homes for Ukraine scheme, regardless of whether that accommodation is to be provided within their own home or via second property, can be subject to enhanced disclosure provided the individual is being assessed as suitable to do so under the scheme. That is to ensure that hosts are subject to enhanced disclosure provided the individual is being assessed as suitable to do so under the scheme. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we have safeguards in place for guests. The illegal war in Ukraine has seen 10 million people displaced. Those seeking a place of safety and sanctuary in the UK are predominantly women and children fleeing the war and the safeguarding needs are therefore paramount in to ensure an adequate level of protection. Whilst recognising that the vast majority of people volunteering to accommodate persons from Ukraine will absolutely present no risk of harm, Scottish ministers are aware from previous similar schemes and recent examples that people may seek to exploit vulnerabilities in the system and seek opportunities to cause harm. As individuals offering whole properties under the scheme will not have entry to their property restricted by the terms of any lease, we consider that the level of disclosure checks that an individual offering to provide accommodation is asked to undertake as part of the suitability assessment of the scheme should be the same no matter the type of accommodation offered. The Government will obviously keep the amendments under review to ensure that they are working effectively and will keep Parliament informed. I therefore move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time and there are nine questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 4319.2 in the name of Jenny Gilruth, which seeks to amend motion 4319 in the name of Graham Simpson on ferry problems be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to vote and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


Let's go through the time and sales column in bookmap. In this current session range volume profile, I'll right click and come down and select the data type, time and sales, and pops up the new time and sales column here. It is displaying the time, the specific price, and the volume that traded. Let's widen this out just a little bit here by left clicking and dragging. You can also widen or narrow these specific column sizes here. You can show all the transactions that are going through or specifically just the buy transactions or the sell transactions or all. You can also filter for the size going through if you want to see a minimum size, a maximum size, or both. And then this box here, if selected, is going to show individual trades that have taken place. So for example, when it is unselected, let's say a block trade, a market buy order for the S&P E-mini for 100 lots goes through and you see that in the size here. Now if this box is checked, instead of seeing that 100 lot order go through, you're going to see all the different individual transactions that took place that composed that 100 lot block order. This collapse all our different settings and go over the next button here. You can export all of your time and sales information here in a CSV file. Click on that and you can give it a name here and it's going to export all the data since when you opened up this time and sales column. The next option over here detaches the time and sales column from the book map columns here. And it opens it up in a separate window. Here you can resize and arrange this window wherever you like within your chart layout. You can see that this column is specific for the S&P E-mini. So let's go to another instrument here and open up another time and sales column and detach that as well. So now you can see we can have multiple time and sales windows open up for the different instruments and you can arrange them as you like. If you want to pop them back into the columns just click on the X button here and they'll pop back in. Let's do the same for the S&P. Come back and you can see here it's back in the columns. Left click hold and drag to arrange that wherever we like.


Okay, good morning. Welcome. Happy New Year. So hope it's, you know, a wonderful year for each one of you. And thank you for enrolling into the spring semester courses. We wish you all the best. This particular course, BC 112 is about a believer's authority. We will also study regarding demonology and parents. So I hope you have accessed your study material for the online students. We have it available in the classwork section. Kindly download it and follow along. On campus, you have your copies and eLearn can also please look in the textbook section and you can access your notes. We will pray and get started. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your word. Thank you that your word is inspired, O God, by you, Father. And thank you, Lord, that your word directs us in our lives. Father, we pray even as a class that you will help us, Lord, to put your word above everything else and, Father, God, to make it, Lord, our focus and Lord, even as we spend time in your word, thank you, God, for the strength, the grace, the direction and Father, for the anointing, Lord, that you are imparting into each one of our lives.  In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. So the Believer's Authority is a subject which is so very crucial for all of us believers in our day-to-day lives. As believers, we encounter challenges and many of the challenges could, you know, just be the, by way of the fact that we are living here on the earth. And we already saw, when we studied about prayer and intercession, that sin has corrupted the world. And even though God wanted man to rule and reign, because of sin and its consequences, there are many things that go on in the world which are evil. But at the same time, we also recognize that we have a real enemy in Satan and the powers of darkness that led by him and controlled by him. So our intention of studying the Believer's Authority is to know how a believer can walk in that original design of authority that God gave man when he created man and woman. So as a believer, one of the things that we must be very clear about is that when Jesus died on the cross and you know, he was buried, he rose again, he did a work of redemption for us. And as part of that redemption, he has restored that identity that God gave us when he first created us. Okay. And so because we have now been redeemed, we can walk victorious. Yes, there will be battles, there will be challenges. But if we are strong in the word and we understand the word of God, we also recognize that even in the midst of the challenges, we are supposed to be victorious. Okay. So that is what Believer's Authority is all about. So first, we can begin by understanding what the meaning of this term authority is. Authority is quite familiar in our everyday lives. We see maybe government positions that reflect what authority means to us or even let's say church, we understand what authority stands for in the family. There is an authority that God has placed. So we see this in our daily lives, but we just need to gain an understanding of what exactly authority means and how one receives that authority. So we're just going to look at the meaning of authority for the next couple of minutes. So you can look at your notes. I'm starting out from chapter one here. Now, we understand that generally, you know, authority is vested or placed on someone giving them rights and privileges. For example, if we consider a traffic police, so on the street, I know sometimes people just start guiding traffic because you know, they think that they have to sort out the traffic problem and people still listen. But usually it's a traffic police whose guidance we will take, right? Like if it's a traffic police in the middle of heavy traffic and he's saying, okay, move aside or stop, people will listen because we look at the uniform. Okay. And that is a sign of authority being given to that person. So that's how he has received the right or the privilege to do what he is doing or she is doing traffic police. So often authority is vested or given to an individual and it allows certain rights and privileges. Okay. Now, authority is also, it gives us the right to influence actions and decisions. So when we consider, let's say our government, they make the decision about how certain things have to be run in the country. They made the rule about which days would be holidays for the people. So they have the capacity to influence. So those who come under their authority, they are able to regulate or direct people. So this is also something that authority means. Authority means influence. We're able to make decisions and it affects the lives of the people who come under that authority. Similarly, you can sort of see that in every sphere in a company, if you have a good manager or a good leader, if they make good choices, it affects the people who come under that authority. Isn't in a family setting, if the leader of the house, they make the right choices, it affects the family positively. So authority is also influence. Firstly, authority is vested or given to us and it offers us certain rights and privileges. Secondly, authority is influence. Now, authority also does not depend on a person's ability. So I'll explain myself. Now, if we consider somebody who is guiding traffic, imagine, this person who's guiding traffic doesn't look very strong or big or tall. Maybe they look exactly the opposite of that. Maybe they're not that well-built or they're quite old. Let's just assume. Now, if a person like that, where to raise their hands and say, okay, stop traffic, do you think people will listen? There's a traffic police. They don't look very big and all, but they're saying stop. Will the people stop? Will they listen? Yeah, why? Because of the uniform, right? So the point that we're making is that when we have been given authority, what we can do does not depend only on our ability. Okay, so similar to what we said. Now, as believers, we may think, oh, you know, I'm not able to do that or this and I'm not so great, but always look at the work of the cross. Now, always look at the redemption that Christ has given to us, the victory that Christ has given to us. Now, because we have that authority, I can still be victorious, right? No matter which phase of my life I'm in, or even if I'm struggling, my authority remains the same because Christ has given it to me. Okay, so that's how we apply believers authority. So it does not, even in our natural spheres, we recognize that it does not always depend on the ability of the person. It can be beyond that. Now, in some cases, of course, authority is earned. Like if you take, for example, an organization, you know, and somebody joins the organization, you may have heard stories like this, you know, that they joined that they joined as some small responsibility, some admin staff or something, but slowly they rose up in their role and they probably got a really high position in the same organization. How did that happen? Maybe they had the skills, they worked hard, they had the experience, they found favor with people around people in the management, right? So based on their performance, the company may have decided, okay, come on, let's pick this guy up, put him in the next role. And then that person just keeps going up the ladder. So in certain cases, authority is also earned. It just doesn't come by that. We have to really work and based on the capabilities, the qualifications, the performance, one can gain more influence for whatever work God has called us for. Now, authority works within the realms. We need to understand this. Now, just imagine there is a manager of a particular company and, you know, he is able to handle lots of people and make all the decisions. Now, if he goes to another company, okay, and over there, he tries to make the rules. And he says, oh, everybody's coming at 9am. It's not good from tomorrow. We'll come at 8am. Do you think people will listen? He's a really good manager. But it's not his company. Okay, so you see, there's also a sphere of influence. For the exercise of our authority, we need to be in the right sphere.   They'll ask me, who are you? You know, this is my house. You're not part of this house. So, the sphere that we want to influence, that's also something we have to think about. Do we have the authority to function in that sphere? If we have, then yes, use your influence, use your authority, things get done. But if I'm trying to function outside of my sphere, then obviously, I'm making a mistake. It won't work out. Okay, so this is also something that we must recognize regarding authority. And yeah, sometimes authority, as we said, you know, we look at people's uniform and we recognize that, okay, this symbolizes that such a person has been vested with authority by the government or maybe they carry a badge of some sort or some symbol that says this person is part of this particular team and you better listen to the individual. So, sometimes you have something that symbolizes authority over a person. And the last point that I'm going to share and stop is authority, unfortunately, can go unused. Okay. Now, let's just assume that there is some sort of a war situation. And the leaders of the nation have to make decisions, quick decisions. Okay, come on, let's protect our borders. Let's do this. Let's do that. Now, what if they don't make those decisions and they just delay? What might happen? It's quite dangerous, right? You're not taking action. You're not planning to protect your borders. Then the enemy can infiltrate, the enemy can quickly act, cause destruction. Why? The people who had the authority need to act fast. Now, if they don't act fast, they're not using that full capacity, the influence, which they have, which again affects the people. So, you see, not using that authority and not using it in a timely way can also, you know, sort of, it can be detrimental. It can cause destruction and loss and failure. Okay, and sometimes imagine a traffic police, you know, in the, in the traffic, traffic is chaotic. He's doing nothing to control the traffic, just standing there. He can easily show his hand and direct the traffic, but he's not doing it. Though he has the authority, authority is unused. So we'll discuss more. I've just given you a gist of things. But even as believers, we've been saying we have the authority, but what if we don't use it? How can, how can it benefit the believer? We have it, but we are not using it, right? So these are all things to think about. So let's go ahead for a break. We'll come back and continue with the same subject. Thank you everyone.