Chamber and committees

I absolutely agree. The Conservatives are not interested in reducing crime and the number of victims in society. If they were, they would support community justice alternatives, which, as Karen Adam said, drive down reconvictions. We know from national statistics that individuals who are released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or less are reconvicted about twice as often as those who are given a community payback order.

We are focused on what works. Our firm focus is on prevention, effective community interventions and rehabilitation in communities and custody, which helps to reduce victimisation. Although no sentence—whether it is a custodial or a community sentence—can eliminate the possibility of individuals reoffending, reconvictions and overall crime in Scotland are at historically low levels.

The member’s question touches on areas that would best be responded to by the Lord Advocate, although it also raises questions for the Scottish Government.

The taxpayer funds the very substantial legal costs of public inquiries, which, as I am sure that the member is aware, can last for many years and involve senior legal representatives. For my part, I am happy to look at the issue; I will do so in conjunction with the Lord Advocate.

We are committed to making improvements while providing more prompt answers. In February, I held a round-table discussion with the inspector of prisons, the review co-chairs and stakeholders to ensure that the review recommendations are implemented swiftly.

I hope that the member takes some comfort from the fact that we have already appointed Gill Imery as external chair to oversee progress against the recommendations. A range of progress is under way, including a round-table discussion with UK and Irish counterparts to learn lessons and the instigation of a working group of key agencies and the Scottish Government.

I do not have much time, but I will give way.

If it was the case that the Conservatives’ concern for victims was uppermost, surely we would have heard condemnation of the way that Boris Johnson and Kwasi Kwarteng have written off the experience of victims of fraud by discounting fraud as part of the crime figures in England and Wales. I will therefore take that intervention with a pinch of salt.

As we would expect—because she is convener of the committee—we heard a very good contribution from Audrey Nicoll. She talked about her experience this morning—along with mine—of meeting the Wise Group.

I agree with much, although not all, of what Daniel Johnson said. He mentioned community justice. We have invested more this year, so there is an increased level of resourcing. I agree with him that one of the reasons for the issues that he raised is the reluctance of courts to use those disposals, because they are not certain of their quality. We have acknowledged that from the start and we are working to address it.

I repeat my thanks for the apology that Russell Findlay gave in relation to the previous charge. I hope that Craig Hoy will rethink his unwillingness to apologise, given that he said the same thing. We will see whether he does so.

I thank the member for doing that. I realise that, for various reasons, it was very hard to do it, but well done to him.

Pauline McNeill made an important point in relation to police numbers and pensions. She will know that the final decision on the pensions—which meant that police officers could make their decisions—came in February this year. That is why we are facing some of the large numbers that she talked about. She will also know—and I hope that people acknowledge this—that it is not just an excuse when we say that the police have been prevented from training people at Tulliallan by Covid and the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. We are now seeing increasing numbers of police officers going through that process.

I answered the point about deaths in custody earlier in portfolio question time. A great deal is being done—including the appointment of Gill Imery, who Pauline McNeill will know—to take that work forward. More is being done, and I am happy to write to her about that.

I will address the Conservative approach, especially the idea that it was wrong for the SNP to give prisoners the vote. I do not know whether that means that, were the Tories ever to get the chance, they would reverse our European convention on human rights obligation to give prisoners the vote. If they would reverse that policy down south, why would they not reverse it here? It has happened there, because their colleagues have done that. They also say that they want to have—as the Tories have down south—a massive prison building programme. If they want another tabloid headline, it could be “More cells and less cellphones”. That is a wee freebie for them. I hope that they recognise the impact that cellphones have had. I am not saying that they are without their problems—the response was made within a short time because of the pandemic—but the impact of cellphones on the welfare of prisoners is crucial. We get a glimpse into what the Tory approach to justice would look like, if those things were to be private.

I start by reflecting that the motion from the Conservatives conflicts with this Parliament’s majority position in supporting the new justice vision at its launch in February 2022. It also fails to acknowledge that Scotland is a safer country under this Government. The overall rate of crime is at one of its lowest levels since 1974; Scotland has experienced a fall of 46 per cent since 2008-09. Homicide cases are at their lowest level since comparable records began in 1976.

We heard from Jamie Greene—who, unfortunately, would not take an intervention from me—that accuracy in these figures is very important. Last year, I was accused by Russell Findlay of having misled Parliament on figures on homicide. He said that I was

“staggeringly wrong and irresponsible”,

that I disrespected

“victims and their families”,

that I

“just parroted duff information fed to him by advisers”

and that I

“must now do the right thing and say sorry.”

I ask him whether he would like to stand up—I will take an intervention—and repeat that charge, or whether he wants to apologise for it. I am happy to let him come in, if he would like to.

Let me conclude by highlighting, once again, the strong support for the Scottish Government’s strategy. It is endorsed by the national justice board of justice organisations, and it secured the support of the chamber back in February. I will continue to work with those who believe in an evidence-based approach.

I am happy to move amendment S6M-04320.2, to leave out from “notes with concern” to end and insert:

“recognises that a majority of the Parliament supported the justice vision and strategy on 8 February 2022; further recognises the need to focus on prevention and early intervention, taking a whole-government approach to reduce crime and make communities safer; supports making services person centred and trauma informed, in line with the aims set out in the justice vision; believes that improving support for victims and survivors should be among the highest priorities for the justice system; notes that recorded crime is at one of the lowest levels since 1974; acknowledges that there is more to do to address violent crime and improve the experiences of women in communities and within the justice system; welcomes the sustained investment in the justice system in 2022-23; believes that, while there will always be a place for restricting people’s liberty in society, the balance should be shifted to ensure that custody is used only when no alternative is appropriate, making greater use of alternative options in communities, and contrasts this progressive and evidence-based approach with the strategy adopted by the UK Government.”

It is obvious from my initial answer that we agree with the idea that people who commit such serious offences should be deprived of their liberty and that public safety should come first, but we also believe that they should be in age-appropriate settings.

I have said that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I know the case to which the member refers. The Scottish Government has previously met the family and heard about the personal toll that the lack of closure has had on them. I sympathise with the family and the situation that they find themselves in.

It is important to make it clear that, under Scots law, someone who has unlawfully killed another person cannot inherit from the estate. However, they can—as in this case—assume the role of executor. The overarching role of an executor is to distribute the estate to those persons who are entitled to it, not to keep property indefinitely.

When the Scottish Government consulted on whether a convicted murderer should continue to be able to assume the office of executor, there was some support for reforming the law. We continue to keep the matter under consideration, with a view to taking forward such a reform. I will be happy to take the matter away and consider it further. Perhaps my colleague the Minister for Community Safety, who has responsibility for civil law, can agree to meet the member to provide him with further information about what might be done in future to resolve such situations.