Chamber and committees

In relation to taking that issue forward in discussions with partners, those partners will be listening to the debate and will take on some of the suggestions about additional information that might be required to ensure that we get the right solutions.

In that context, the member is right to mention that prison staff need training. It is fair enough to say that prison staff should do this, that and the other, but they need to be trained to do those things.

I have mentioned the difficult conversations that prison staff have to have, but the member is right to say that they must be trained and supported in having them to make sure that families are kept aware and that other prisoners are considered when a death in custody happens. It will be a much more trauma-informed approach. We cannot just say that people should do those things; we have to take responsibility for training.

In the next few months, we will learn the other lessons that we have to learn and consider the other information that we have to call on.

I may have misheard Mr McArthur, but I did not catch the question there. The report was about the response of the Prison Service and the NHS to deaths in custody. Overriding that is the ability of the Lord Advocate to instruct a mandatory FAI when there is a death in custody.

The process that Mr McArthur mentions was not the subject of the review, but it has been reviewed and agreed by the Parliament. Although there are objections to it and I listen to those objections and concerns, some of which have just been raised by Mr McArthur, I have not yet seen an alternative proposal put forward. I would be happy to listen to such a proposal, but in the meantime, the review takes forward what the SPS and the NHS can do in relation to deaths in custody, when people are in their care.

Front-line prison officers and our NHS staff work hard every day to support people in custody, including those who use challenging behaviours as a means to communicate their distress. We know that people in custody present higher levels of risk and vulnerability than are found in the general population.

Our mental health transition and recovery plan, which was published in October 2020, made clear our commitment to continue to work with partners to seek better support for those with mental ill health in the criminal justice system, including in prisons. A cross-portfolio ministerial working group has been formed to identify the issues that the justice system faces in relation to mental health and to look at ways to apply original and creative solutions to those issues.

I agree with much of what Katy Clark says, but will she acknowledge that the proposed introduction of domestic abuse courts is a matter only for the Lord Advocate and that they are not something that the Government can bring in?

In that case, I will jump forward.

The fundamental point is that there are some really important issues here. The not proven verdict has been mentioned; we will discuss that, as well as corroboration and anonymity. In many of those areas, we can make changes, but, at the root of what we do, we must have a trauma-informed justice system, from end to end. “Trauma-informed” is a buzzword just now, but we have to make it a reality. Our justice system must also be victim centred.

However, all the collective changes that we could make will not be sufficient; we need a culture change and, for that, we all—especially all the men in this chamber and throughout the rest of Scotland—bear huge responsibility.

I ask the Parliament to restate our collective ambition to make that change and to support the motion.

Today’s debate has been an opportunity to discuss one of the most serious human rights violations: violence against women and girls. It has also been an opportunity to highlight the strong cross-party consensus that exists—not on every part of the issue, of course, but there is consensus on the fundamentals.

I thank members from all parties for their contributions. I also thank and pay tribute to the front-line service workers who work tirelessly to ensure that women and children can access vital help, advice and support during these times. Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the ASSIST—advocacy, support, safety, information and services together—project, Victim Support Scotland and many others who support victims of gender-based violence demonstrated incredible resilience and adaptability at the height of the pandemic. I thank them for all that they do.

We are here to discuss a different type of pandemic—a number of members have called it a “shadow pandemic”—in our society: men’s violence. I listened carefully to last week’s debate on violence against women, which was led by Shona Robison, and I echo all the sentiments that she and other colleagues expressed. This is a men’s issue, and it is men’s responsibility to change.

For my part, I am prepared to do everything in my power as justice secretary to ensure that all forms of men’s violence against women and girls are eradicated from our society and that women’s humans rights are upheld throughout our justice system. It is past time for men to look closely at their behaviours and challenge those of their peers. That point was very well captured by Police Scotland in its “Don’t be that guy” campaign. I commend its powerful message.

I will quickly address some of the points that have been raised. Jamie Greene was right to mention that there is broad-based support across the Parliament for many of the measures that we might take. Although we might differ on certain particulars, there is a great deal of support for many of the measures that could be considered.

There needs to be a general cultural change. We could make all the changes that different parties want, but we will not change the fundamentals of men’s violence against women and girls until we make such violence culturally unacceptable in society.

The issue of veterans has not been mentioned. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, I am well aware of the experience of women in the armed forces. I recently opened a veterans facility in Fife, where there was a woman who used to serve on ships; she was one of the first women to go there from the Women’s Royal Naval Service. She had an absolutely horrendous experience. I think that we will see more coming out about that, and about the treatment of LGBTI people in the armed forces. We must look at the treatment of women in the armed forces.

Difficult reforms will need to be made, many of which we are looking at. I do not think that we will get agreement on the presumption against short sentences. The last case that Russell Findlay mentioned was dealt with under the previous legislation, which the current Scottish Government changed. Although the early release of the individual in question took place under the current Government, the previous legislation applied at the time. There are issues on which we will probably disagree.

Pauline McNeill raised a point about legal aid. The Minister for Community Safety is carrying out a review of legal aid, and I am sure that she heard the points that were made, which will be addressed.

Liam McArthur acknowledged that progress had been made. He also mentioned issues such as anonymity, in relation to which we will take action.

Audrey Nicoll and Maggie Chapman mentioned the backlog of cases, which is a huge issue, and Maggie Chapman asked what we can do about it. I am not making a political point, but we have no Covid consequentials to deal with anything related to justice in the settlement from Westminster. Our challenge is to find the money to continue the work that we have done on, for example, remote juries, or to continue with some of the innovations that we have adopted with regard to recording evidence. I reiterate that we are more than willing to listen to other suggestions.

It might have been Kaukab Stewart who said that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed is also justice degraded. Over time, people forget the evidence. We must ensure that we limit any backlog.

I say to Tess White, who made a very good speech, that we have never drip fed anything from the misogyny working group, at least not as far as I am aware—I am happy to be challenged on that. We have regular conversations with Baroness Kennedy. The Parliament agreed that she would report back by February, and the minister confirmed that we expect that she will do that.

The backlog and the other issues must be dealt with. In a spirit of trying to find consensus, we will accept the Tory amendment, even though there are things in it that cause us concern.

I cannot accept the Labour amendment, for the reason that I sought to draw out in my intervention on Katy Clark, which relates to the constitutional position. We have been here before. I said that the matter of the introduction of domestic abuse courts was one for the Lord Advocate; it is actually the Lord President who has the power to direct the courts. However, we agree with much of what the Labour amendment says, and much of what Labour members have said, and I hope that we can continue to work together on taking these things forward.

Victim blaming, misogyny and patriarchal commentary have no place in a modern, progressive Scotland. It is men’s behaviours that need to be held up to scrutiny. I have said this a number of times, but it bears repeating: harassment, unwanted physical and verbal attention, threats, invading women’s space and many other actions that men routinely inflict on women must stop.

We all grew up at a certain time. If I am honest, it is only in the past few years that I have realised the extent to which women have had to change their behaviour and it has been made more obvious to me that women such as my daughter, my mother and my sisters would have changed their behaviour from the point when they were small girls. Men must change their behaviour to start to unravel that, and education is an integral part of that.

I will do if I have time.

I thank Jamie Greene for his questions and will try to address them in turn.

First, he said how important it is for the Prison Service and others to learn lessons. A trenchant criticism in the report is that, although an individual death in custody might lead to the learning of lessons, such learning is not cumulative. We do not bank that learning for the future. The establishment of an independent body might be one way to ensure that that happens. Other recommendations in the report, as Jamie Greene will know, should ensure that it happens. We have to learn continuously and not forget lessons that have previously been learned. I take that point on board.

Jamie Greene also asked how the independent body would fit with the other bodies that are, necessarily, involved after a death in custody. That is an important point. In my discussions last week with the authors of the report and the law officers, we all acknowledged that there will have to be substantial work involving the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate and various other bodies, to ensure that the independent body fits properly with other bodies, because we cannot allow any system to prejudice a criminal report or undermine the Lord Advocate’s constitutional position in relation to FAIs. That is a real concern. I cannot answer the question now; all I would say is that those discussions will take place. We will ensure that one body does not trip over another.

I very much take his point about speed—it has been a criticism in relation to FAIs, too. The report specifically says that the investigations should be completed

“within a matter of months.”

I agree, which is why, between now and when I come back to the Parliament to report on the issue, I will take action to ensure that we do not lose sight of the need for a quick response to the families. Communication and speed of response are perhaps two of the top three asks of families in those circumstances, so we must act on them.

However, it is only when we have had the chance to look further into the report’s findings and take part in discussions with other partners that we will be able to tell whether further legislation is required. As I have said, I am happy to come back to the Parliament and report on that in due course.

I cannot immediately think of any reason why the body should not have those powers. Unless a compelling reason why the new body should not have those powers comes up in the discussions with other partners, I cannot think why we would want to fetter the new body, which is independent for a reason.

The member will see that other recommendations refer to data and information being provided more readily, for example to families. Why, then, would we not provide that information to the independent body? It would seem wrong not to do so. As I say, we will have to have those discussions with our partners. We will come back to the Parliament and the Parliament will have a say on that.

Pauline McNeill’s other points are really important—they are issues that can sometimes be lost. People need to be informed of someone’s death and spoken to in a way that shows understanding of the impact of that death. I do not blame the prison service; across the justice system, people are doing their job and they do not necessarily see it as central to that job to take the trauma-informed approach that we must embed right across the system. They are doing their job, but it is important now that we say that there is more to it than that. When we are dealing with people who have lost somebody through death in custody, we have to make sure that they get the right information—and as much information as possible—that they are spoken to in an understanding way about the loss that they have experienced and, crucially, that they get answers quickly.

I cannot say for certain that there would not be a case that, for some reason, took longer than a year, but if the standard is to be a matter of months—not necessarily 10 or 11 months—that would be much better for the families. The report makes a serious attempt to address some of those fundamental concerns.

As I said in response to Russell Findlay, an SSI is being laid in Parliament today, which will amend prison rules to allow prison officers and employees to

“copy and, for the purposes of investigating whether it contains a prohibited article or unauthorised property, test”

that correspondence. My hope is that the rules will come into force on 13 December, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.