 The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on Scottish Government response to independent review of deaths in prison custody. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Keith Brown, cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes, please. In November 2019, my predecessor asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland and her co-chairs, Professor Nancy Lawkes, chief executive of families outside, and Judith Robertson, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to carry out an independent review into the response to deaths in custody in recognition of the need for increased transparency and better engagement with families following a death in custody. That review is now complete and has published today. I would like to take this opportunity to make a statement to highlight this important work and set out the context of the review and its findings, and members will now have the opportunity to consider and read the report. Before I do so, however, I must offer my sincere condolences to all those who have lost loved ones while in prison custody. It is always hard to lose someone close to you, but to do so in circumstances where you cannot be with them and may not be clear about the circumstances of their death must be especially hard to bear. I am also very grateful to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Wendy Sinclair-Gabyn and her co-chairs, Professor Nancy Lawkes and Judith Robertson, who worked with her to conduct the review for the comprehensive and robust work that they have carried out. Families outside facilitated the involvement of families who have been bereaved by a death in custody, and the commission provided expertise on human rights. I know that delivering the review took longer than had originally been planned, but that was unavoidable in light of the impact of the Covid pandemic. I would like to thank all concerned for their commitment to the review through challenging circumstances and the very real barriers that Covid imposed on the research process. The primary aim of the review is to make recommendations on areas in which improvements can be made in the immediate response to deaths in prison custody by both the Scottish Prison Service and the NHS, including deaths of prisoners, while in NHS care. Most importantly, the review aims to highlight ways that, in the event of a death in custody, the response to and experience all families could be standardised and improved, so as to provide prompt answers, transparency and, importantly, compassion. I should highlight at the outset that it's not the purpose of this review to include or consider the investigation of deaths in prison. The Lord Advocate is the independent head of the system for the investigation of sudden and suspicious deaths, and the Crown Office and Fiscal System carry out that work on her behalf. As such, the investigation of deaths occurring in prison, including criminal investigations and arrangements for fatal accident inquiries, are out with the remit of the review. In Scotland, a fatal accident inquiry, or FEI, is mandatory whenever someone has died in prison custody, and the Crown Office undertakes independent investigations in advance of mandatory FEIs. I'm grateful, as I've said to the management and staff at the Scottish Prison Service and the NHS for engaging with the review and for informing its recommendations. The review makes a number of important recommendations, highlighting practical, operational and compassionate changes that are needed to improve the ways that deaths in prison custody are handled and responded to in Scotland by both the Prison Service and the NHS. Those changes include training grounded in the appreciation of the impact of death, as well as early empathetic engagement with families. We will work with the SPS and healthcare delivery partners to ensure that those recommendations are delivered. I know that SPS has already implemented some immediate improvements, such as compiling a booklet that signposts families to bereavement services and to support, and I look forward to seeing more of the changes that will be implemented in the coming months. I put on record my own appreciation for the SPS and prison-based NHS staff, who care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As I saw at first hand when I visited Perth prison earlier this month, the overwhelming majority of staff are extremely committed to ensuring the health and wellbeing of the people they care for, and they want to do the right thing with regard to their loved ones. It is clear that, although systemic and operational changes are needed, particularly in standardising and improved response in the event of a death, there are and there have been very real efforts by staff to support one another, as well as the prisoners who are impacted by a death. Most of all, I like to express my gratitude to the families who either participated in the research process or who formed a family advisory group. I understand that the advisory group met monthly for the duration of their review, providing lived experience and expert views on the issues that they looked at. I am very aware that their involvement over such an extended time period may have required a great deal of emotional resilience, and I thank them for their time, their willingness to revisit the grief that they experienced and the insights that they gained through their participation. Turning to the report itself, the law officers and I met last Thursday with the chairs of the review to discuss their findings and recommendations, although I, of course, have not yet had the opportunity to fully consider the detail and implications of all the findings and recommendations that were made by the review, I wanted to be clear to Parliament that I accept the recommendations in principle. In respect of the key recommendation, I agree that an independent body should carry out an investigation into every death in custody. The recommendation is that an independent investigatory body, which immediately starts a process of engaging with the family and agencies, could provide transparent and prompt information to families at an early stage, thus better meeting the needs of bereaved families. Families want to know as quickly as possible how their loved ones died and what the circumstances of their deaths were. That would complement the independent investigation by the Crown Office into the circumstances of the death, the information provided to families by the Crown Office in terms of the family liaison charter and the subsequent FAI, which is provided over by the judiciary. I should highlight at this stage that it is clear that the suggested recommendation around this independent body does not and should not replace any of the current inquiry processes. The current FAI process, as enacted in legislation in 2016, follows upon an in-depth review of the FAI system. There have been improvements in relation to the system of FAIs since the introduction of the legislation and the modernisation project undertaken by the Crown Office in 2019. That will be further enhanced by a specialist Crown Office team that will focus on the investigation of deaths in custody and the resulting FAIs and brings together a number of specialist disciplines. That recommendation will require some further detail, practical and legal consideration in conjunction with the Crown Office and Fiscal Service and other partners. That will take time, but I commit to doing so as quickly as possible. Overall, the findings point to a lack of consistency in the way that deaths in custody and, specifically, the engagement with the family by the prison service in the event of a death are handled. Indeed, while the experience of families in the way that they are consulted and considered varies, at present this engagement tends to lack the compassion that we might expect. I believe in fatality that this does not represent a lack of compassion or humanity on the part of the prison service. Rather, that points to the need for staff training and how to have difficult conversations and knowing what information they can share and when. Conversations, as we know, about death are never easy, and they require maturity, sensitivity and empathy. Staff can be coached to enable them to hold these conversations in ways that uphold the dignity of bereaved families while also providing them with valuable answers and support. I was also pleased to note that the review acknowledges the good practice that does exist, such as meetings held with families that struck a sensitive tone, invitations to families to visit the establishment and see where their loved one lived for context, inclusion of the family also in memorial services and facilitating their meeting friends and cellmates. I have been told that the review team heard examples of sensitive and supportive staff. I am not too sure that this was not universally the case, and I accept that. Through trauma informed training, as I mentioned earlier, and a review of operational processes, what is an extremely difficult time for bereaved families could be made less traumatic and more compassionate. I want to reiterate that I am committed to improving the immediate response to bereaved families who have lost their loved one while they were in prison custody. I should also mention that it is outwith the scope of the review, but I have also raised the issue of the notification of victims in the event of a death in custody. I am aware that the service is already provided by the victim notification scheme, and it will be subject to a review in its own right next year. I, along with relevant key partner agencies, will hold a round table at the beginning of next year to map out what needs to be done to deliver it on the review's recommendations and progress work to make the necessary changes to operations. The review is a substantial one, and we will work on the recommendations and advisory points set out by the chief inspector and her co-chairs. Our ultimate aim is to improve the ways that deaths of loved ones in prison custody are experienced by bereaved families. As a progressive society, it is important that we have transparency, a trauma informed approach, and a compassionate justice system that understands that improvements need to be made to better deliver for families. Finally, I commit to giving Parliament a full update of progress by summer 2022. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, and I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which time we will have to move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call Jamie Greene. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement, but I also thank the review group for their work, and I say to the families of anyone who is relative died in custody that we share your grief here today. The best way to summarise this rather stark report is on the front page of it. Two pillars of trauma informed practice are choice and control. Our review showed that families who are bereaved through a death in custody have neither. The report paints a grim picture of systemic failings and how we deal with and prevent deaths in custody, many of which go unknown and unnoticed, those with mental health problems who died of suicide or drug overdoses in our prisons, the silent victims of our justice system, 39 of them so far this year. Their families have been let down on so many levels so many times. Most worryingly of all, though, the report says that little has been done right now to learn lessons and prevent future deaths. I hope that the report is a real wake-up call and a catalyst for change. Given that the main recommendations for an independent new body to oversee investigations into deaths in custody, how will that remove, augment or duplicate work, which is the current remit of the crown and existing bodies? If legislation is needed for its creation, how forthcoming will that legislation be? Will he finally back our repeated calls for a statutory timeframe for fatal accident enquiries, as the report itself now calls for, and given the stark seriousness of the situation, which of the report's recommendations can be acted on straight away so that even just one life could potentially be saved as a result of this report? I thank Jamie Greene for his questions and trying to address them in turn. First of all, he mentioned how important it was for the prison service and others to learn the lessons, and I think that that is one of the trenching criticisms in the report, that, although it might be the case that an individual death in custody has learned to learning of lessons, it is not cumulatively done. We do not bank that learning for future. I think that the establishment of an independent body may be one way in which we can ensure that that happens. There are other recommendations, as Jamie Greene will know in the report, that should ensure that that does happen. We have to learn continuously and not forget lessons that have previously been learned. I take that point on board. He has asked about the independent body and, in particular, how it would fit into the other bodies that are involved, necessarily after a death in custody. That is an important point. All I would say is that, in the discussions that I had with both the authors of the report and the law officers last week, we have all acknowledged that there is going to have to be substantial work involving the Crown Office, involving the Lord Advocate and various other bodies to make sure that that can fit properly. We cannot allow any system to prejudice a criminal report or undermine the Lord Advocate's constitutional position in relation to FEIs. That is a real concern, and I cannot answer it just now. All I would say is that those discussions will take place and we will make sure that one does not trip over the other. On his point about speed, I very much take that point. It has been a criticism, obviously, in relation to FEIs as well. To see the report mentioned that those reports should come out within months—they say that very specifically—I certainly agree with that. The actions that I will take between now and when I come back to Parliament to report on that will be to make sure that we do not lose sight of the need for a quick response to the families. Both in terms of the communications and the quickness of response, perhaps there are two of the top three asks of families in this circumstance, so we have to do that. It will only be at the point when we do have the chance to look further into the report's findings and have those discussions with other partners, whether we will be able to tell whether further legislation is required, and, as I have said, I am happy to come back to Parliament to report on that in due course. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for the chance to question this important area of policy. The report is damning on Scotland's approach to death and custody, and the report states things like prison officials accused of corporate homicide for their failures in the investigation of death. To name but a few, Alan Marshall, whose family still do not feel he have the answers, William Lindsay Brown, and Katie Allen, whose family still await a fatal accident inquiry. The report goes on to say that the Scottish Prison Service is seeking to limit accountability, a lack of family engagement in every step of the journey. Humanity and compassionate times were compromised. Cabinet secretary, we know that evidence shows that the involvement of families in fatal accident inquiries and investigations does make a huge difference to the outcome and terms of the recommendations. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the independent body should have unfair access to all relevant material, including the data, and that there should be a duty on the Scottish Prison Service to retain all relevant information, as the report says? Cabinet secretary has already responded to Jamie Greene's question, so he has answered that, which is, can this have the ability to shorten the time it will take to get answers? He has said that, yes, it could have. I am sure that he wants to ask, does the cabinet secretary believe that, in order to change the direction of those horrendous figures and the way that families are treated, that this body must be given unfettered access to provide those answers, the answers that families need to have? I cannot immediately think of any reason why a body should not have those powers. Unless there is something that comes up during the discussion with other partners, which is a compelling reason not to do, I cannot think of why we should want to fetter this independent body. It is independent for a reason. You will also see that other recommendations refer to data and information that has been provided more readily, for example to families. Why we do not provide that information to the independent body would seem wrong to do that. As I said, we will have to have those discussions with other partners and we will come back to Parliament and Parliament will have it say of course on that. However, the other points that Pauline McNeill makes are really important, and they can be sometimes lost, the ability to be informed and the ability to be spoken to in a way that understands the impact of somebody's death. I do not blame the prison service for that. I think that across the justice system people are doing a job and they do not see it as central to that job necessarily to have that trauma informed approach that is necessary for us to try and embed right across the system. They are doing their job, but I think that 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 who has died through a death in custody, we have to make sure that they get the right information as much information as they can, that they are spoken to in a way that understands the loss that they have experienced and, crucially, that we get those answers in a quick fashion. I cannot say for certain that there would not be a case for somebody who did not take longer than a year, but I think that if the standard is to be a matter of months, and not necessarily 10 or 11 months but a matter of months, that would be much better for the family. It is a serious attempt by this report to try and address somebody's fundamental concerns. I would just ask for succinct questions and answers. We have used up over seven minutes of the 20 minutes available for two questioners, and I really do not want to prejudice all the backbenchers who wish to ask questions. The cabinet secretary mentioned the importance of ensuring that staff are well trained in the way that deaths in custody and the engagement with families in the event of deaths should be handled. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about what can be done to ensure that staff are trained to hold such conversations sensitively, whilst providing the answers and support that they require? Just to be brief, the review makes, as Rona Mackay points out, a number of important recommendations highlighting practical, operational and compassionate changes that are needed to improve the ways that deaths in prison custody are handled and responded to by the prison service, the NHS and others. That will require, as the report suggests, and as Rona Mackay hints, training on their part. We will work with the prison service, the NHS and Crown Office, to make sure that those changes are made. Against a backdrop of rising prison deaths, families tell the report's author that the authorities often do not care about the death of addicts. The cabinet secretary has committed to ending drug-soaked prison mail that will save lives, but can he tell us exactly when that will happen? In terms of the laying of the statutory instrument, that was laid today with the Parliament. If it goes, and it depends on parliamentary scrutiny, as the member will be aware, but if it goes, as we hope it will do, then that should be coming into effect on the 13th of December. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further information as to how the voices of families of prisoners, as well as human rights experts, have been represented throughout the review process? As the member hints, it would have been wholly wrong to have had such a review without involving the families. I have already mentioned that the family advisory group was set up. It met monthly for the duration of the review, made up of 12 people from eight families, and it informed the work of the review throughout by providing lived experience. The helpline team from families outside also collated inquiries for families regarding concern for someone in prison. Judith Robertson, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, was appointed as co-chair of the review. I reassure the member that we will make sure that the involvement of families continues as we look through the report's recommendations and take them forward. The cabinet secretary said that he agrees in principle with a key recommendation of the report that a separate independent investigation should be undertaken into each death in custody. Does he agree that, as part of that, it is vital that an independent investigator has early access to all witnesses whilst events are still fresh in their minds? I think that the member of the question says that that is why I have said in principle, because I think that in practice she will know better than me perhaps that there are dangers in relation to that in terms of a possible criminal prosecution or an FAI. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure that those who are carrying out those inquiries, a independent body, make sure that they are not going to jeopardise any future potential criminal case by making sure that, when they talk to witnesses, they do so in such a way that it does not make that process or impinge on that process. However, the ability to get into a situation quickly and provide the facts to the families is very important, and that will be the thrust of what we are trying to do. However, some of those issues have to be worked through, and that is why we need more time. Gordon MacDonald, to be followed by Liam McArthur. I met with the Governor of Shots prison last week concerning a constituent's relative who died while serving a prison sentence. His relatives do not want another family to face the outcome that they did. Can the cabinet secretary advise what steps are now being taken to reduce the number of drug-related deaths in prison custody and also how improved data transparency on deaths in custody will help families to find closure? Just to confirm for the members, as I have said in response to Russell Finlay, an SSI is being laid. I hope that in Parliament today, which amends the prison rules to allow prison officers or employees to copy and for the purposes of investigating whether general correspondence received into a prison contains a prohibited article or unauthorised property to test that correspondence. As I have said, my hope is that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it will come into force on 13 December. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Collette Stevenson. I thank the authors that there is report but also pay credit to the families who have dragged the Government to this point, determined to secure change for others because of the pain that they endured. Does the justice secretary acknowledge that there are a number of lessons of this report, such as the need for learning to prevent more deaths, for investigations to happen quickly, for families to be kept updated, also apply to FAIs, which continue to routinely compound the pain of families and which ministers deliberately excluded from this review? I may have misheard the question that was in there but the point that he makes about yes this was, this was about the prison service's response and the NHS's response to death in custody. Overriding that is the ability of Lord Advocate or she, there's a mandatory FAI when there's death in custody. So that process, which was not the subject of this review but which has been introduced by Mr McArthur, I should say is one which has been reviewed by this Parliament, has been agreed. I've still yet to see, although there are objections to it and I'll do listen to those objections and some of the concerns, some of which have just been raised by Mr McArthur. I've not yet seen an alternative proposal being put forward in relation to that. I'm happy to listen to that but in the meantime, I think that this is taking forward what the SPS and the NHS can do in today's in custody when people are in their care. Can the cabinet secretary provide any further information in terms of the steps being taken to provide mental health support to people in prisons to help mitigate against suicides? I should say that the front-line prison officers and NHS staff work hard every day to support people in custody, including those who use challenging behaviours as a means to communicate their distress. And we know that people in custody present higher levels of risk and vulnerability than the general population as a whole. So our mental health transition and recovery plan, published in October 2020, made clear our commitment to continue to work with partners to seek better support for those with mental ill health within the criminal justice system, including prisons. A cross-portfolio ministerial working group has been formed to identify the current issues facing the justice system in relation to mental health and to look at ways to bring forward urgent and creative solutions to those issues. Maggie Chapman, to be followed by Brian Whittle. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and echo his thanks to the reviews co-chairs and everyone who supported its work, especially the families who have lost loved ones in custody, and I extend my sympathies to them all. The review highlights that, despite their best efforts, they experienced challenges in securing the participation of prison staff and had no control around ensuring randomise selection of participants and informed consent. Similarly, no women in custody participated. Both of those should be a cause for significant concern, perhaps the latter, especially given recent and forthcoming discussions about gender inequalities in our institutions. Can the cabinet secretary outline what additional information and research he thinks is necessary to ensure that we better understand the experiences and views of women in custody, as well as the prison staff who support them? I should say that the process that I have outlined earlier about taking this forward in discussions with other partners, those partners in the main will be listening to this debate and will take on boards from the suggestions about additional information that might be required to make sure that we get to the right solutions. The member is quite right to mention the fact that prison staff in this context need training. It is fair enough to say that prison staff should do this, that and the other, but they have to be trained to do that and have mentioned the difficult conversations that they have to have. The member is right to say that they must be trained and supported in doing that to make sure that the families are kept aware and to make sure that other prisoners are also considered in terms of a death when it has happened. It is to be a much more trauma informed approach. We cannot just say that people should do that, we have to take responsibility for training and we will do that, and as to the other lessons that we have to learn or other information that we have to call on, that will happen in the course of the next few months. One of the prison staff members said that their participation in a fatal accident inquiry cannot be prepared for and is the single worst experience of a prison staff's role. What is the Scottish Government doing to support our hard-working prison staff both and to ensure that they have access to mental health support services and to support them when they participate in a fatal accident inquiry? The fatal accident inquiry, as I have mentioned, or the holding of it, is not within the gift of the Scottish Government and it is conducted by the Lord Advocate, but the member is quite right to raise the fact that there are staff that are involved in that that require support, and that report recognises that. I think that I would just accept what the member says, that we have to do more in relation to that. I have mentioned the impact on other prisoners of a death in custody. There is an impact on the staff as well, and we have to acknowledge that. The point is well taken. I think that the report tries to address that and the challenge for us now is to take that forward and try to deal with it as most effectively as we can. I now call James Dornan, our last questioner, who is joining us remotely. The work will be taken forward regarding... Excuse me, Mr Dornan. Sorry, I am sorry. There was a technical problem, so could you start your question again, please? I certainly could. Can the cabinet secretary advise how the views and experiences of families will inform the work that will be taken forward regarding recommendations of this review? I think that James Dornan has his question. I have partially answered it earlier on, but he asks if it will be taken forward and just say that we will be holding a round table early next year to inform next steps for progressing the review's recommendations. For my part, I am very open to discussion with the chief inspector of prisons and families outside who have mentioned on how best the views of families and the family advisory board can be heard at the round table and also how they can help inform and shape the progress of the recommendations. We will not get to the place that we need to be if we do not have that input from the people most affected by this. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the statement, and there will be a very short pause to allow front benches to move to their seat safely before I call the next item of business.