Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes this time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes on this occasion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to access the app. I would have voted no.

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.

As the member knows, the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the investigation of deaths.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has put in place many improvements to systems and processes to ensure that all deaths are investigated thoroughly and within a reasonable timescale. Funding for the overall COPFS budget has been increased in recent years to support the progress of such investigations.

A specialist investigation team will be established during 2022, which will investigate all deaths that occur in legal custody.

Separately, the Scottish Government has accepted in principle the recommendations of the “Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody”. External chair Gill Imery has been appointed to oversee recommendation implementation, including that of the key recommendation of an independent investigation into every death in custody. That will not replace the fatal accident inquiry or any of the current inquiry processes; it will complement the independent investigation of COPFS into the circumstances of the death.

The Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care and I are committed to ensuring that veterans can access appropriate mental health support wherever they live in Scotland. At the debate in March, we jointly supported the principles in the veteran mental health and wellbeing action plan, which was published in December 2021. As a first step, we are providing £50,000 to the see me campaign to tackle the stigma that veterans have told us that they experience.

We have appointed Dr Charles Winstanley to establish a veteran-led implementation board to take the plan forward, and we continue to fund Combat Stress and Veterans First Point to provide veteran mental health services during implementation.

I mentioned some of the other recommendations in my initial answer, and I am happy to write to the member with a full account of the progress that we have made on them so far.

On the point that the member raises about what we are doing, £1.4 million has gone to Combat Stress and £666,000 has gone to Veterans First Point to provide services in 2023; in turn, that funding has been matched by six local health boards.

Through the veterans fund, we also fund organisations that help veterans, such as HorseBack UK and a number of others. We treat the issue very seriously, and we are putting in and have put in substantial sums of money to address it. The action plan that has been mentioned, and on which I will write to the member, details the further progress that we intend to make.