Chamber and committees

Throughout this situation, we have sought to take a precautionary approach, to ensure that all potentially affected cases are reviewed and to revert temporarily to the LS/CMI paper-based system while we assess the impact of making the required changes to the IT function. The member will have picked up that we want to do that with the open cases first and then move on to previously closed cases.

I have mentioned that we are also asking the risk management authority to urgently convene the review group, which would draw in other justice partners as needed. The work of constituting that group began today. Once the immediate and on-going review of live cases is concluded, the review group will examine the overall impact of the two errors in the IT system and I will report back to Parliament at that stage—Parliament permitting, of course.

The member makes reference to a centralisation process—I forget how he described it—in a derogatory way. We do not know this yet, but it may have been the centralisation, which happened in 2019, that was the means by which the technical glitch, which is what it was, was discovered. However people may like to describe it, there was a technical problem with the program. Centralisation meant that all the councils and the Scottish Prison Service were on the same system, which may well have helped us to find the issue in the first place.

I mentioned that the work is on-going. We were advised of the situation last Friday. The work that has been done over the weekend and right up to this point has led us to the statement that I have made and some of the facts that I have given, but there is more to be done. I have been very clear about that. There is no way around the technical information. I would have been slated had I not given the technical information behind the issue.

It is true to say, and I am perfectly willing to admit, that I would have liked to come to the chamber with all the facts in front of me, but there was also pressure to tell the Parliament as soon as possible. I have conceded that more information will come out, and I will be happy to report to the Parliament in the future.

The member asked whether anybody has been released. I have given the facts as I know them, which are that all the returns that have come back so far indicate that there is no risk of somebody having been released early. On the second point, which was to do with the alcohol factor, it may well be that the risk was overstated. However, we will, again, have to wait until more facts come forward.

Therefore, there is no evidence—as yet, as the member rightly said—of any risk to the public from anybody having been released when they should not have been. As I have said, more information will emerge. It is not the 495 cases that the member talked about but the 200-plus that I mentioned, 150 of which have come back so far. However, it is also true to say that there is a much bigger piece of work needed to go back through the history of the situation right to 2012, to make sure that we got it right in relation to the closed cases as well.

I am trying to be as open as possible, and I am happy to come back to the Parliament and answer more questions in the future, when we have more information.

I will answer as many of the questions as I was able to take in. On Pauline McNeill’s first point, she is right that it is technical information and the statement has lots of that information, including the figures that I mentioned. She asked for something like a glossary or explanation of some of the terms. There is more information in the letter that I have sent to the Criminal Justice Committee, because it is easier to put the information in a letter.

I am sure that the committee will want to discuss the issue in the future, and I am more than happy to provide further explanation and briefing on it if the member wishes. A great deal of work is being done by the social workers and the review panel that I have set up. That will involve a substantial amount of work for the people involved, which will be done as a priority.

Pauline McNeill mentioned the issue of risk, which I mentioned in relation to the alcohol aggravator. Bearing in mind that the final judgment on a case is a professional judgment by the people involved in the system, the risk scoring, which seems to have been the issue, was giving that aggravator too high a bearing. Sometimes, when alcohol was no longer deemed to be a risk factor, the risk scoring might not have been showing a reduction in risk. That is one of the things that is being investigated.

I am happy to provide more information to the member. Either she can write to me or, since both she and Mr Greene are on the committee and the convener is here too, I am happy to provide information through that route and to come back to Parliament as well with more information when we have it.

They will be helped by the review process itself. In any event, it is a good idea to have the review, and it was good that what was picked up, in the first instance, by somebody in the Prison Service was not accepted as a glitch. It could have been perceived as such, but it was not written off in that way. There were thorough checks to see whether there was a wider issue, which there was, and that led to further checks and a second issue in the system being found.

The system was introduced in 2006, I think, but it moved to being IT based in 2012 and has now been centralised. To go back to the very first point that Jamie Greene made, I am not aware that there was anything in the centralising process that caused the issues; we know that that is not the case in relation to the two technical problems that have emerged. Indeed, it might be that centralisation, which is supported by all the different justice agencies, is the means by which the problems have been found.

As Fulton MacGregor asks, we will continue to provide support to all the professionals who are involved. I recognise the points that were made by him and Katy Clark that the matter is providing additional work in a pressurised area. We will make resources available to ensure that the professionals can get through this without it affecting their other work.

On Liam McArthur’s first point, I cannot provide confirmation. We have received information on 150 cases—the number was 150 first thing this morning, but it will be higher now; that is the pace at which the situation is being worked through—and those cases have not yet thrown up any public protection issues, which, in relation to the idea of overstating or wrongly stating, does not yet concern the professionals who are involved. I might be able to say more about that as more information comes back to us and as we go through the rest of the functions.

I apologise, but I have forgotten the second part of Liam McArthur’s question.

I have mentioned the means by which we are trying to push through the review. We will have significantly more information in the next fortnight, but I do not want to commit to when the review will be finished, because we must be sure that we have had a complete check. As well as finding out about the issues and concerns, we want to ensure that the entire system is working.

I cannot give Liam McArthur the assurance that he asked for just now, but we should have much more clarity on the major issues, many of which have been raised by members today, within a fortnight.

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 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?

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.