Chamber and committees

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 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.

The statistics show that recorded crime remains at one of the lowest levels since 1974 and is down 41 per cent since 2006-07, with non-sexual violent crime down 36 per cent over the same period and homicides at their lowest level since 1976.

Incidentally, last November, the member retweeted an accusation that I had misled this Parliament on homicides. I hope that he will take the opportunity today to either repeat that accusation or to apologise for it, because it is entirely false.

The Scottish crime and justice survey shows that adults in Scotland were less likely to experience crime in 2019-20 than those living in England and Wales. Although that progress is very encouraging, the levels of crime over recent years highlight that there is more to be done. We have increased the policing budget, with a total in 2022-23 of almost £1.4 billion.

First, members will note that Craig Hoy rejected the idea of either confirming or apologising for the allegation that he made last November.

On the policing situation, of course we have—[Interruption.] The Tories get very animated when they hear this. We have in Scotland substantially more police officers than England and Wales have, and they are paid substantially more here—a constable starting in the police force is paid around £5,000 more in Scotland.

We know what the Tories do when they have the chance to set levels of policing: it is substantially less than what the Scottish National Party does. We will continue to invest in police services.

I note, in passing, that the Conservatives made no amendment to our budget to ask for increased funding for police costs. They made no amendment when they had the chance to do so, so they must, despite what they say today, be very pleased about the higher levels of policing here in Scotland, under the Scottish National Party.

I do not agree with that. I simply drew to the member’s attention the fact that different rules are being applied by the UK Government in relation to Wales and Scotland. The UK Government does not fund the commissioner in Scotland; we set up the post ourselves and pay for it through funds in Scotland, none of which is associated with any part of the Barnett formula.

This Government does a great deal of work on veterans and has done so for many years, and we have dragged the UK Government with us to do more. We think that the work that we do on veterans should be recognised in the funding formula.

I would have thought that the member would agree that we should have more funding for veterans in Scotland, and that the UK Government should stand behind that and help our veterans wherever it is possible to do so.

It is good to have that supplementary question, which relates to the substantive question about Poppyscotland. As I said in our news release with Poppyscotland back in March, I strongly encourage all veterans in Scotland who have not already done so to take the opportunity to complete the census, including the question on previous service in the armed forces, before the extended deadline of the end of May. That will help us to develop a more complete picture than we have ever had of our veterans population. It will give us an insight into the ages and circumstances of veterans throughout Scotland that will be vital as we continue to improve the provision and targeting of support for armed services personnel and their families.

By contrast, that is a fair question. We acknowledge the point—[Interruption.] Again, we get interventions from a sedentary position. It is the case that short sentences are associated with increased reconviction levels, as the member says. We are looking to increase the community disposals that can be used in the judicial system because, as I said in my answer to a previous question, they have lower reconviction rates.

I am sure that the member shares with me the ultimate aim of reducing the number of crimes and, therefore, the number of victims in Scotland. He makes a fair point, and I hope that he will agree that that is the Government’s direction of travel.

I last met Poppyscotland to discuss veterans issues on 29 September 2021. Since then, my officials have engaged with it regularly on a range of topics including the poppy appeal, the festival of remembrance, preparations for events to mark the 40th anniversary of the Falklands war, promotion of the veterans question in the 2022 census and veterans’ employment and health.

The most recent engagement by Scottish Government officials came last month, when Poppyscotland was invited to comment on the current draft of our upcoming refresh of the veterans strategy action plan.