Chamber and committees

The safe treatment of mental health issues of all those in custody, whether in Polmont or elsewhere, is a key priority for Scotland’s prisons and our Prison Service. We take the mental health of all those in custody very seriously. The SPS is developing a new health and wellbeing strategy for the service that recognises the increasing complexities and the underlying health conditions of the prison population in comparison to the wider population. The strategy will focus on a public health approach through the organised efforts of the SPS in partnership with those who have responsibilities for the delivery of healthcare in prisons.

The new health and wellbeing strategy will provide the overarching framework for all health-related strategies, which includes mental health. We are also undertaking a substantial study in relation to the complexity of needs in the area. We will produce a report on that next year, which will inform the strategy that I have mentioned.

Planning legislation is not within my remit. The member has rightly raised the issue with me previously; she might want to talk to the ministers who are responsible for that.

I appreciate that the matter is of significant concern to her and the community. I will ensure that my officials engage closely with Police Scotland regarding shooting ranges in Eskdalemuir valley. I understand that the police have already visited the ranges in question several times in recent months to assess their safety and operation, and that they plan to do so again in the near future.

As I said, planning matters—

As I made clear in the chamber last week, our programme for government sets out our plans to launch a public consultation on the three-verdict system within this parliamentary year.

As confirmed in the programme for government, the new strategy will include an emphasis on early intervention and encouraging a further shift away from the use of custody, where that is appropriate. Community payback orders, which can include supervision as well as a range of other requirements, are a key part of that. Of course, it is up to the sentencing judge to decide on the most appropriate sentence in each individual case, including which requirements might be necessary if a CPO is imposed.

To answer the member’s question directly, we are committed to investing in a substantive expansion of community justice services, which underpin the delivery of community sentences, as well as to the delivery of a system for diversion from prosecution and alternatives to remand. The funding that is available for community justice services will, as always, be subject to the spending review and parliamentary approval of the draft budget in due course.

The review’s purpose is to consider all factors. That is fairly obvious from the fact that such a review was built into the 2016 act, so that we can look at past successes and areas for improvement. There has been substantial improvement in the levels of recidivism, which was an aim of the previous strategy, so there have been successes. The review should look at the matter in the round. The member will, of course, have the chance to comment as the review progresses.

The Scottish Government is in regular contact with Police Scotland regarding a variety of firearms licensing matters. Officials and police work together to manage complementary licensing systems and to ensure that firearms are possessed and used safely across Scotland.

The Scottish ministers have no role in approving shooting ranges. It is for Police Scotland to be satisfied as to the safety of any land where firearms are used.

I will address Pauline McNeill’s last question first. As I know that she knows, the Government would have no control over the pace of an FAI, if that is the way that the Lord Advocate chooses to proceed.

I acknowledge her first point, about the time that it has taken to get to this stage. I acknowledge the delay, and the angst that it has caused to the people who are involved, but once again I highlight that the Government—quite rightly—has no control over the process. Nevertheless, it is welcome that the Lord Advocate has said that she has already started the process and that she will keep us updated as to how it moves forward.

Pauline McNeill also asked whether we are satisfied that resources are available to the police in sufficient quantum. I refer her to my previous answer. We have consistently increased the police budget. When there have been requests—there have not been many—from Opposition parties in budget processes to increase funding to the police, we have responded to those. Of course, that can be done only at the expense of other services—we have to make that choice. We have also responded to specific requests from Police Scotland.

In addition, we hope to ensure that our police remain in much larger numbers. One of the budget constraints is that, if we increase our police numbers—as we have done—to more than 17,000, but the United Kingdom then reduces its police numbers by 17,000, the fact that it is spending less on policing means that we get less in consequentials, so it becomes harder for us to continue to fund the numbers of police that we have. Our commitment to the Parliament to ensure that we maintain the police resource budget is very strong and should, I hope, give some reassurance. I hope that other members will support that commitment.

Beyond that, it is the Government’s responsibility to allocate funding and the Parliament’s responsibility to agree that funding, and it is then the SPA’s responsibility to deal with that funding and oversee how the police spend their budget. I have high—and rising—confidence in the SPA’s ability to do that.

We have to learn lessons. It will take a bit of time to do that, and it will be done as and when, and if, an FAI proceeds—we should, of course, learn lessons at that stage as well.

I appreciate the points that Willie Rennie makes and the fact that he has been involved in the case for a long time and has personal knowledge of the family concerned, but I have to say that I disagree with him.

I have been a supporter, by conviction, of centralisation of the police force; I believe that it leads to a better police force in Scotland, and it is already showing benefits.

Of course, I acknowledge the tragic loss of life that happened in this case, but I believe that centralisation of the police is a fundamentally important public service reform. I am not the only one who says so. In my statement, I read out a list of all the different people, including the chief constable, the chair of the SPA and the head of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, who have seen benefits from centralisation. That is an important point.

Willie Rennie asked what lessons we can learn. I have already mentioned some of them, including some practical things that have been done. Pauline McNeill mentioned increased training for staff, which has been taken forward as part of the 30 recommendations.

I have confidence that those recommendations are improving the existing service even further. Nonetheless, it may be the case that an FAI, if that is the way that the Lord Advocate proceeds, will give us a further opportunity—Willie Rennie may have a chance to contribute to the process—to go back and learn further lessons. I, for one, would commit the Scottish Government to playing a full part in an FAI, if that is what happens.

At this stage of the session, I know Maggie Chapman’s views on the issue that she has raised. I have confidence in our justice system, notwithstanding the point that Pauline McNeill raised about the time that it sometimes takes to get to a conclusion, which can be very difficult for people who are waiting for a resolution to the issues of justice that they seek. Of course, as a listening Government, we will listen to proposals for further changes that would facilitate the more efficient use of the justice system in order to achieve justice. We should always seek to do that, and I am happy to engage with Maggie Chapman, as I have done already, on the issue that she raises.

I have sought to answer that through the funding that I have announced, which we will continue to commit to Police Scotland for the reform process. I underline that we recognise that reform did not end in 2012. It takes time to go through a reform of that size, which has been described as the biggest public sector reform under devolution. We have to accept that we must continue to support it.

I have mentioned already that the chief constable has been candid about the fact that there are still challenges with some IT and other systems, not specifically in relation to call handling but across the legacy forces’ systems. Given that, and given the vital importance of policing to the wellbeing of the entire country, we are duty bound to continue supporting the police in the way that I have described and through resources, including the very recent resources that I mentioned in earlier answers.