Chamber and committees

Mr Kerr makes a fair point about my response to Mr Findlay. However, if a question comes with all sorts of political rhetoric added to it, I will respond to that. I am happy to respond to factual questions, as it is a serious issue, and that is what I have tried to do.

I will respond directly to Mr Kerr’s question. On 24 January, a member of the Scottish Prison Service who was using the system found an issue with it. They contacted the help desk that is provided by those who are there to support the system. They had to be certain that it was not an individual user issue, and it took time to do that. They ran tests in parallel with the system. That took until 23 February. [Keith Brown has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

The Government was advised that there was a wider issue with the system on Friday afternoon last week. That is when we were told. Over the weekend and since then, work has been going on non stop in an effort to get a resolution for the system and the workaround of a paper-based system, and to gather more information so that I could make as full a statement to Parliament as possible. I think that we have acted pretty quickly. Of course, we are open to criticism, but I think that that was the right way to do it.

I have tried to answer the question of how many people have been released who should not have been released by saying that, of the 265 open cases that have to be looked at, more than 150 have come back with no public protection issues whatsoever. That number was from this morning, so it might be higher now. Of course, if there is any change to it, I will update members through the processes that I have already mentioned.

I will update the Parliament on an issue affecting the level of service and case management system, also known as the LS/CMI system.

LS/CMI has been used in Scotland as a paper-based system since 2006, and as an information technology system since 2010. It supports risk assessment and case management for individuals with a history of offending. The LS/CMI system is used by social work and prison staff as one part of a wider set of processes to inform a number of decision points within the criminal justice system, including sentencing decisions, programmes access and prison release decisions.

In 2019, the system was centralised. As of 22 November 2021, all 32 local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service, which had each previously hosted the system locally, were migrated on to a centralised IT system.

The LS/CMI risk assessment tool is not the only risk assessment that is used within the justice system. A number of different tools are used for a variety of different types of offenders. This issue relates only to the LS/CMI risk assessment tool. A number of validated risk assessment tools support and inform professionals in their decision making. Those include risk assessment tools specifically related to violent offending, sexual offending and intimate partner violence and stalking.

In the prison environment, LS/CMI is used as one of a suite of risk assessment tools. The choice of risk assessment tool in that context is partly influenced by the nature of the index offence. Management of the assessed risk is governed by a multidisciplinary team of professionals referred to as the risk management team. The RMT is chaired by a prison senior manager who is supported by a range of professionals including, but not limited to, criminal justice social work, psychologists, health professionals, Police Scotland, local authorities, chaplaincy and third sector agencies. The challenge of assessing and managing risk draws together that diverse range of professions in the shared objective of protecting the public by preventing or minimising harm.

A recurring theme in risk management practice is the need to balance the safety of potential victims with the human rights of the offender. This multidisciplinary approach, which involves a range of professionals, is also often used for managing individuals within the community setting. Risk assessment is dynamic and, as members see, it is holistic in its nature and is never based on one assessment within the system.

I will explain in detail the circumstances relating to two issues that have been identified, and outline the precautionary measures that have been taken at every step to ensure that confidence in Scotland’s public protection arrangements is maintained. I apologise in advance for the somewhat technical explanation around some of the factors at play. Given the importance of the issues, it is right that we take a precautionary approach.

Following a call about a single case, which was raised by a user to the system helpdesk in January of this year, the system issue was explored by the IT managed service provider for LS/CMI and by the Risk Management Authority, which both provide a helpdesk service for the system. That work sought to understand whether the issue affected just that particular user or was more widespread. Following those detailed investigations, it became apparent last week that the issue affected other users of the system, and test scripts were immediately developed to identify affected cases.

The particular systems issue affects the display of information in the risk assessment part of the system. In some particular instances, the numerical risk score value does not match the risk score level that is displayed by the system. A systems issue appears to prevent any subsequent changes being made to that risk level when new information has been entered.

As of this week, there were 103,394 assessments in total on the live system and, of course, individuals can have more than one assessment. There are approximately 24,000 open cases on the live system. An open case is one where there is some on-going management of the individual in the justice system, which requires use of LS/CMI. I am advised that, from the work that was carried out over the weekend, there were 1,317 assessments where the calculated score did not match the final risk need or level. Of those assessments that were affected, 1,032 relate to closed cases and 285 relate to open cases.

The system enables social workers to override the risk level shown on the system and, of the 1,032 closed cases, there are 537 where an override has been applied by social work. That is the professional judgment being applied to a risk assessment. That means there will be 495 closed cases that appear to contain a risk level that is affected by the system error. The 537 cases that have an override applied will need a case-by-case review to determine whether the override superseded any error.

Officials have taken immediate action to review open cases that the justice system is still managing, and I will say more about the review process shortly.

On Friday of last week, my officials issued an immediate update to users of the system—principally, justice social work but also SPS staff—to make them aware of the issue and provide a temporary solution, so that cases could be identified on the system and a form of override applied.

Work is on-going to identity the specific affected cases and, on Tuesday, my officials issued details of the open cases and locations of those cases to users of the system, and asked them to specifically review risk levels and scores and take any necessary actions.

The action in those cases will have been for users of the system to determine whether the risk level that was shown for the cases that they manage was correct, and to apply an override if not. Users of the system were also asked to involve partners, if there was any impact on the on-going management of that individual within the justice system. My officials are assembling returns from users of the system as they do so. To date, 150 returns have been received, and no users of the system—social worker or SPS—have advised the Scottish Government of any public protection risk as a result of that systems issue.

Justice social workers, whether community or prison based, are trained professionals and will always apply professional judgment to every individual that they manage. The nature of risk assessment is holistic and wide ranging. It is not mechanistic and is never solely based on the LS/CMI risk assessment tool.

The initial error has been investigated as I have described. Further to that, and as part of that investigation, previous change logs and helpdesk calls have been reviewed in parallel, to explore any issues that interact with the systems issue. It seemed only sensible to do that. From those investigations, it appears that there might be another area of risk scoring, in relation to alcohol or drug use, that creates an error. Although the extent of that is not known, it is clear that it might affect the risk score. As presently reported, the initial evidence on the system indicates that the score is likely to be higher rather than lower, so it overstates risk rather than understates it.

Given that this second issue has been identified as potentially affecting cases, I have—again as a precautionary measure and to ensure that we take no risks with public protection issues—agreed the following actions.

All social workers have been asked to review all open cases on the following priority basis: cases that are due for imminent consideration of release from prison, or for entry into multi-agency public protection arrangements, or to move on to licence.

Justice social workers have been asked to move, with immediate effect, to the paper-based system that is part of the agreed contingency plan in the event of any system failure. Extensive support from Community Justice Scotland has been put in place should there be any immediate training implications. Other risk assessment tools in the system are paper based, however, so the system that those professionals move to will already be familiar to many of them.

We are working with the IT company that manages the system and, if necessary, additional expert IT capacity will be deployed to assist with the rigorous assurance process of every element of the system that we now need to carry out.

I have convened a risk review group, which will be led by the Risk Management Authority, to work through, as a matter of priority, the open and closed cases to assess whether the errors have had an impact on how those cases were managed in the system. I reiterate that this work is being done to provide further assurance, and not because we are aware of any issues around the management of offenders due to the issue. I am keen that this work concludes swiftly, and I am, of course, willing and eager to report back to the Parliament on its outcome as soon as that group has concluded its work or has initial findings that it is appropriate to share.

In terms of further actions, officials have written to other justice partners with an interest in these matters, including Police Scotland, the Parole Board for Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration. Officials have also written to victims organisations to ensure that they are sighted on the issue and so that officials can offer necessary reassurance around the work in hand. If any of the victims organisations would find it reassuring to meet with me so that I can reassure them about the actions that are being taken, I am more than happy to make that offer, as well as to involve them in these processes.

I have also written to the Criminal Justice Committee today, to make it aware of the issue. I will continue to update the committee as more information becomes known.

It is important to reiterate that this issue has not resulted in any concerns being expressed by social workers, in the community or in prisons, around any offenders who are in the justice system. Our approach will always be precautionary and evidence based.

I am updating the Parliament on the issue to ensure openness and transparency, but I hope that the steps that have already been taken, and the openness with which we are dealing with the matter, provide members with some reassurance.

I have confidence in the professionalism of our justice and health professionals who every day manage changing and evolving risk across a range of offenders. As has been explained, LS/CMI will never be the sole determinant of how the justice system deals with the risk that is associated with an individual. There is much more by way of judgment and process involved, and determination will often involve a multidisciplinary range of professionals, who are never just following what is displayed on the system. I am very grateful to them all for their continued support in ensuring that we retain confidence in how we protect the public from offending behaviour as we move forward.

I will continue to update the Parliament on the matter, as appropriate. I am happy to take any questions.

The member is correct in saying that it is never just the LS/CMI assessment that determines, for example, prison release. A multidisciplinary team of professionals, which is referred to as the RMT, governs the management of assessed risk in prison. A prison senior manager chairs the RMT, supported by a range of professionals including, but not limited to, criminal justice social workers, psychologists, health professionals, Police Scotland, local authorities and third sector agencies. A range of other specialist tools for assessing the risk of sexual and violent offending are also often used alongside the LS/CMI—it is not, to use the old phrase, the only tool in the box. It is probably not even the most important one, considering the professional judgment of the list of professionals that I have just given.

Notwithstanding the further work that we have to do, I am confident that the answer will be one that reassures the member—he will perhaps be reassured if I write to him with the exact details of the matter.

The member is making an outright political attack when the matter is quite serious and the public are possibly concerned. Honestly, we are just getting sick of this script—“The SNP Government this, the SNP Government that.” Perhaps the member should treat the issue as seriously as it should be treated. The issue is serious and can cause people concern, so it deserves a serious discussion rather the political rhetoric that we have just had from Mr Findlay once again.

Yes. As I have said, I am happy to do that. I think that I am due to appear before the committee for about two and a half hours, on different issues, next week. It will be up to the committee—[Interruption.]. I apologise—I did not hear that. I will be happy to answer any questions that are asked. If the committee wants to change the nature of its questions as a result of today’s statement, the Government will be responsive to that.

I have already committed to come back to Parliament on the issue. There is a judgment to be made about when it would be appropriate for me to do that. It is a judgment on which we cannot win. I want to make sure that Parliament is informed as soon as possible. That has been the injunction from the Presiding Officer. I have sought to inform Parliament as soon as possible. It is six days since we were made aware of the issue. Much work has been done to make sure that we can get as much information as possible to members. As and when we have more information to provide to members, I will, of course, come back to the committee and the Parliament. In the meantime, I will also be happy—this relates to Pauline McNeill’s questions—to correspond with individual members.

On the first point, as far as I am aware, it would not be possible to give a breakdown of the offences, because, as I mentioned, many different tools are used in relation to different offences, often in conjunction with other tools, and all those tools are used in conjunction with professional judgment. However, I will look into the matter and see whether I can provide more information to the member.

The second question was about the resources that are required to carry out the work. It is the nature of the job that they will have to do it—it is very important, so the work will begin right away. As the member knows very well, it is in the nature of the work that is done by criminal justice social workers and staff in the Prison Service. Justice professionals will be familiar with the paper-based system that will be used while the review is undertaken, not least because some of the other systems that they currently use are still paper based and because some staff will have used the LS/CMI paper-based system prior to the IT system being adopted. It will not be new to those members of staff, but I recognise that the review will take time. Given the on-going, resource-intensive nature of the work, I am happy to report back to the committee and the Parliament on it.

I will. Martin Whitfield will find references to families throughout my speech. I am sure that the minister, too, will mention families, when he speaks.

The “Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan” highlights the need to look at what makes a good life in order to have good health. To underline the point that I have just made, I note that a veteran’s mental wellbeing is inextricably linked with the mental wellbeing of their family.

I am also acutely aware of the link between good mental health and having a warm and safe home, a job and a loving relationship. Members will be aware of our commitment to work collaboratively with stakeholders to improve services and support in those areas. That work includes the veterans employability strategic group and the veterans Scotland housing group. I have often thought that there is a tripod of support that can ensure that veterans can reintegrate into civilian life. That includes housing, health and employment. If one of the three is missing, that can cause major problems.

We commissioned the Veterans Scotland housing group to develop a pathway to prevent homelessness for veterans. I am pleased that its report was published earlier this year. I know that that issue is very close to the heart of the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care, who previously had responsibility for that matter. That was a collaborative process, and we want that spirit of collaboration to be mirrored in other contexts. We will continue to work closely with partners, including the armed forces community and the housing sector, to consider implementation of the 24 recommendations in the report.

Let me touch on employability. Most service leavers and veterans in Scotland enter work and are successful in the labour market, but we know that some face barriers to employment and that some, although they can get a job quickly, do not secure work that is commensurate with the skills and experience that they have gained from their time in the armed forces. At a time when so many sectors are reporting labour and skills shortages, it is more vital than ever that people who have skills and experience have access to the help that they need.

For those who need to reskill, a wide range of employment and skills support is available. However, despite the availability of advice and support, we know that some veterans are still unable to access the help that they need, so I acknowledge that we need to go further. We will continue to work with partners across Scotland to change that and to ensure that every service leaver and veteran who is able to enter sustained and fair work has the opportunity to do so.

The armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group is a key part of improving access to healthcare, and will continue to prioritise mental health. Other significant work that the joint group is progressing is to do with better identification of veterans in our healthcare system, to enable veterans to be signposted to, and to access, the support services that are most appropriate for their needs.

The joint group recognises that living with long-term physical health conditions as a result of military service can have a substantial negative effect on mental health. We are exploring how we can establish a service that will provide a comprehensive pathway and connect veterans to the right help for their physical and mental health needs, in recognition that the two are often linked.

I thank NHS National Services Scotland’s Scottish Veterans Care Network for recognising the issues that veterans raise and for producing a number of principles that are informed by those issues, in its “Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan”. The Government endorses the proposals that veterans should be able to access services easily and at the right time, and that people who provide services to veterans should understand their needs. The Scottish Government will continue the work of the Scottish Veterans Care Network, putting veterans at the heart of the implementation process.

If we are to deliver services at the right time and in the right place, it is vital that we have the right information. I am pleased that our understanding of veterans’ needs will be enhanced by the results of the 2022 census. We will also have access to the information on veterans that will now be included in Scotland’s three primary household surveys.

I have talked about some of the issues that veterans face when it comes to good mental health—housing, employability, pathways to help and support, early identification by the system, previous issues to do with a lack of good data, and stigma. Only through the cross-policy approach that I described, and with a focus on improving all those areas and more, will we be able to ensure that veterans can enjoy good mental health.

As we move to the next stage of the plan, we will establish a veteran-led implementation board, to lead on the plan’s delivery. I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Charles Winstanley as chair of the action plan implementation board. Charles is a veteran of impeccable standing, who has led delivery of services in the national health service and the third sector, as well as having experience of mental health research. The implementation board will report on its progress to me and to the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. It will oversee the work of the Scottish Veterans Care Network and it will advise on the structural and funding requirements that will make the principles in the action plan a reality.

For many years, the Scottish Government has supported veterans and their families through the innovative work of Veterans First Point and Combat Stress. We have funded both organisations to provide mental health services for veterans and their families—none of that funding is recognised in terms of consequentials or money coming from Westminster specifically for that purpose, but that has never stopped us allocating funding and increasing it where we can.

I am pleased to announce today that we are providing further funding in the next year to the six Veterans First Point centres, which are in Tayside, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Arran, Fife, Borders and Lothian. Funding of £666,000 will enable the centres to provide mental health support to veterans and their families in the transition phase.

I can also announce further funding of £1.4 million for Combat Stress, so that the organisation can continue its important work. Combat Stress is relocating services to Glasgow and Edinburgh, thereby providing more accessible routes to support.

Before I conclude, I want to mention that the veterans commissioner, Charlie Wallace, will publish his final report later this month. His advice and recommendations on veterans health are another vital set of tools to inform our work. I place on record my sincere thanks to Charlie for his contributions during his 10-year period as commissioner, which will end in late March. On behalf of Scotland’s service personnel and veterans, and their families, I wish him well for the future.

I should say one or two things about the amendments. First, on the Labour amendment, I agree that, as we develop our new suicide prevention strategy, we should engage with organisations that represent veterans’ interests, thereby ensuring that we capture the right outcomes and actions that will be required to further mitigate suicide risk among veterans. The minister will say more on that, but I should say that we are happy to accept the Labour amendment, in that regard.

On the Conservative amendment, I looked at veterans debates in this chamber over 10 years or so and have never seen an amendment like it. The amendment would completely gut and fillet the Government motion, then reinstate some of the points in it. I do not know whether that signifies a departure. We have had a remarkable degree of cross-party consensus in veterans debates, which I know is appreciated and valued by the veterans community, but the Conservative amendment marks a departure and shows us how much Maurice Corry is missed.

I welcome the point in the amendment about the UK Government’s veterans recognition scheme and the support for the implementation of the action plan. It is important that veterans have, should they choose to do so, the ability to easily identify themselves as veterans when accessing services, so I welcome the UK Government’s plan to undertake a scoping study for provision of digital verification of veterans. However, I cannot support the Conservative amendment and regret the fact that the Conservatives have sought to undermine the debate.

I wholly endorse the key principles of the “Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan”. There is cross-party consensus on the importance of that, at least, so I look forward to working with members across the chamber on supporting the mental health of all our veterans, their families and service leavers in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of supporting veterans and greatly values the significant contribution that they continue to make in Scotland; notes the NHS National Services Scotland publication by the Scottish Veterans Care Network, Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan, setting out how it will take forward key principles to improve veterans’ mental health and wellbeing in Scotland, and understands that this action plan highlights the need to take an holistic approach that takes account of housing, employment, education and other needs, and work in partnership across the Scottish public, private and charitable sectors and with the UK Government to ensure that veterans and their families receive the best possible support and access to services across Scotland.

I am delighted to open the debate, as we emerge from the pandemic. The mental health of the whole population is a fundamental consideration for the Scottish Government, but we must be particularly mindful of the mental wellbeing of veterans, who have sacrificed so much for us all. Our veterans and their families have unique experiences that will have impacted on their mental health in numerous ways. We are truly grateful for their service.

I thank my colleague Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care, who proposed that we hold this joint debate, and I acknowledge the excellent progress that has been made in delivering the “Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan”, which was produced by NHS National Services Scotland’s Scottish Veterans Care Network.

In the process of delivering the plan, veterans have told us that veteran mental health services are not available throughout Scotland—access currently depends on where someone lives—that veterans are sometimes unclear about what services are available and about where to go for help, and that some statutory services are aware of the needs of veterans and their families, but that is not universal.

I will use some of my time in the debate to describe how we will go further to make a difference for people who need help and support, and how lived experience will play a fundamental role in shaping that.

We are acutely aware of the challenges that the charitable sector has faced over the past two years and of the impact that the pandemic has had on the sector’s ability to deliver support. The response from our statutory bodies and third sector partners has been outstanding. An example of that is the move to delivery of innovative therapeutic services and counselling online. In addition to the pressures that have been caused by the pandemic, the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August last year affected veterans across the UK, and we know that veterans mental wellbeing services in Scotland experienced a significant increase in demand from veterans and family members who were concerned about their loved ones.

We continue to engage with charities and other service providers to ensure that veterans get the help that they need for their mental health. The Scottish Government has continued funding specialist mental health organisations for veterans, such as Combat Stress and Veterans First Point.

A number of priority areas are important to me, as the cabinet secretary with responsibility for veterans. I will touch on some of those.

In a visit to a drop-in centre last year, I heard first-hand from a female veteran who had continued to struggle with her mental health because of her experiences in the service. I was also able to hear about the benefit of having a local veteran-led service that understands the unique experiences of female veterans.

As well as our female veterans, we must also be aware of the specific needs of individuals from the LGBTQ+ community and of early service leavers. I support the UK Government’s recent commitment to an independent review of the pre-2000 treatment of LGBT veterans. That also includes a commitment to understanding better the support needs of female veterans and veterans from ethnic minority backgrounds. I look forward to the Scottish Government being able to contribute to and support delivery of those commitments. Through the Scottish veterans fund, the Scottish Government is funding the work of Fighting With Pride—a charity that supports the health and wellbeing of LGBT veterans. All our veterans need services that address their particular needs. To do that, we need providers that understand their experiences.

The United Kingdom Government has undertaken a consultation exercise on a proposal to waive the fee of £2,389 for non-UK service personnel who apply to settle in the UK at the end of their military service. That waiver would be based on their having served for 12 years, or having been medically discharged for reasons relating to their service.

In its response, the Scottish Government raised an issue that we had raised before the consultation process began: the excessive cost of immigration application fees and the need for a more flexible immigration system that meets Scotland’s specific needs. We are talking about people who have served in this country’s armed forces, but who are not being given the ability for them or their families to stay in this country, without paying a substantial fee. In our view, a requirement for 12 years’ service is too long. I do not believe that we should charge settlement fees to people who have served this country. We should not be excluding people because of their inability to pay; we should be including those who can contribute to our country. We want Scotland to be a country where our veterans are welcomed and their service is valued.

In its response to the consultation, the UK Government agreed to decrease the fee waiver stipulation from 12 to six years. Fees will be waived for those who have been discharged due to an injury or illness that is attributable to their service, irrespective of how long they have served. That is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is disappointing that the UK Government did not go further and align the fee waiver with the four-year reckonable service requirement that has been imposed by the Home Office.

Unfortunately, the UK Government chose not to make any changes to arrangements for the dependants of non-UK armed forces personnel. A more generous and compassionate approach to family migration policy is still required to ensure that our valued veterans, and their families, are able to settle and make their lives in Scotland.

I agree with the member’s point, but will he recognise that we have tried for years to get information on veterans in Scotland from the United Kingdom Government without any success, and that the first opportunity that we have to do that is through the census?

Will Sue Webber give way?