I am covering that in my speech, and there is more to come. We need to get more police on our streets and do more to retain the police officers that we already have. There are suggestions in my speech, if the member wants to listen.

The Scottish Retail Consortium previously pointed out that

“Thieves are becoming more brazen and aggressive”,

and it said:

“This isn’t just affecting convenience stores but chemists, garden centres, fashion stores, and retailers more widely. The impact is being felt across all retail destinations.”

That is all happening despite stores taking real action to try to prevent it. They have spent fortunes on closed-circuit television, body-worn cameras and other attempts to protect workers. Some stores supply their security guards with stab-proof vests. However, those things are not making much of a difference, because the problem is so widespread.

The consequences for criminals are almost non-existent. Not only do offenders get away with it, but they are almost encouraged to keep doing it because there are no repercussions. This Government must face the reality that allowing police officer numbers to fall to the lowest level in more than a decade has real-world consequences. It is sending a message to criminals that they can get away with crimes or face very little punishment—or, as I heard this morning, no punishment.

What needs to happen to change that and to give retail workers the protection that they deserve? First, Police Scotland needs more resources. The aim should be to increase front-line officer numbers and retain those officers that we already have. Without more officers responding quickly to these crimes, thieves will never be caught and shops will be—as they are—discouraged from even reporting abusive or violent behaviour.

As I heard at this morning’s meeting, 70 per cent of the crimes are caused by 10 per cent of the offenders, so there needs to be more investigation of the crimes and we must ensure that there are consequences for those who commit them.

I also stress that we need to keep our officers safe by issuing them with body-worn cameras. We have already heard that that would be a game changer. Anything that we can do to improve officers’ safety should be implemented as soon as possible. That could also help retain the officers that we already have.

Secondly, there must be better means of reporting incidents by retailers so that problem areas can be quickly identified and targeted, and crimes prevented. As it stands, retailers do not believe that that is happening.

Thirdly, more consideration needs to be given to the pressures that the Government is imposing on workers and businesses. Rules on the selling of products are often a flashpoint for abuse or violence, and the Government is looking to expand the use of those rules in the future. For instance, the challenges that the SRC has cited include September’s rise in the minimum unit price for alcohol, upcoming restrictions on the sale of vapes and tobacco, proposed new rules on the location in-store of alcohol products and a disposable cup levy. If those proposals are to go ahead, they should be communicated clearly to the public at large. The rules must be explained, because I heard this morning that retailers are already concerned about the imminent increase in MUP and the lack of public awareness through Scottish Government communication. Clear signals must be sent that abusive or violent customer behaviour is unacceptable and will face punishment.

So far, the Scottish Government has not acted decisively on retail crime. The issues that were raised this morning included a lack of police officers, police response times, making it easier to log incidents and on-going issues with bus passes. The Government has let down workers and businesses through inaction.

I hope that the debate will shed more light on the challenges that front-line staff face, and that it will kick-start not only a conversation but action on how we can solve the issues, so that nobody faces threats in their workplace every day.

I mentioned the pilot project taking place in Fife in a previous question. It is not in my region, and I was not able to find out much information about it, but I got feedback from one group that is involved that crimes are being reported—there is a new way to report them—but no action is being taken by the police. The on-going issue seems to be that the retailers are not reporting any incidents to the police because the police do not have the capacity to respond.

Would everybody who is on modified duties be unable to carry out full operational duties?

Given the benefits of body-worn video cameras, I would hope that it would be the number 1 focus so that there are no further delays in rolling them out.

You are getting information on that.

I will follow up on Rona Mackay’s thread. In its submission, the ASPS talks about the

“growing number of police officers unable to carry out full operational duties and placed on ‘modified’ duties”,

which, it goes on to say,

“can be for a range of medical reasons, including mental health. There currently does not appear to be a coherent strategy to reduce this ever-increasing number”.

Why are so many staff put on modified duties? What are the reasons for that?

For how long can someone stay on modified duties?

We have heard about the proportionate response to a crime, and about pilots in which minor crimes have not been investigated. What level of response do we need? Another reason why police officers have issues with their mental health is that they want to investigate every crime. The proportionate response to a crime is to investigate it. Would that number of officers allow you to investigate every crime to the required level?

Other stakeholders need to play their part.

Can you clarify something? You talked about warranted officers. Are they people who are basically on the front line—out in the street?