 The next item of business is a statement by Hamza Yousaf on home detention curfew, HMIPS and HMICS independent review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Hamza Yousaf for up to 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to Craig McClellans' family. I met them again this morning to discuss the reports and how the Government will respond. It is clear from our conversations that Craig was a much-loved son, brother, partner and most of all dad to his three boys. Craig was a remarkable young man. Through speaking to his family, I have heard much more about him. I have heard stories of Craig's selflessness and how he would intervene if somebody was in danger without giving consideration to himself. What touched me the most was how Craig's life completely revolved around his family and friends, especially Stacey and his three boys. I would like to commend his family, Craig's family, for their bravery and their tenacity in highlighting their concerns about the circumstances of Craig's death. I am absolutely determined that lessons will be learned and that improvements will be made to home detention curfew to ensure that public safety remains paramount. In June, my predecessor instructed HMIPs and HMICs to undertake independent reviews of HTC. Those reports have been laid in Parliament today. I met the two chief inspectors yesterday, and I would like to thank them and their teams for undertaking those reviews. I also met the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service and the chief constable this week to seek assurances that the inspectorate's findings will be addressed as a priority. I will discuss the inspectorate's findings and the action that is being taken in response in just a moment. Before I do, I would like to provide some overall context of HTC. Home detention curfew is an established mechanism for preparing prisoners for release. It is not available to all prisoners and is not an entitlement. Prisoners are only eligible following risk assessment and provided that they are not subject to statutory exclusions. At any time, there are around 300 people on HTC. That is approximately 4 per cent of the prison population and is comparable to its use in England and Wales. Since it was introduced in 2006, over 20,000 people have been released under HTC. The vast majority—80 per cent—successfully complete their period of HTC. Of those who are recalled, the vast majority are returned promptly to custody. However, I am clear that HTC needs to be strengthened in light of the inspectorate's findings. The inspectorate's reviews examine the process for assessing whether someone should be placed on HTC and for investigating breaches and apprehending individuals following recall. The review also examined whether processes were followed in the case of James Wright, who was convicted of Craig's murder. In that specific case, the inspectorate has found that the application process and decisions to release were in line with existing policies and guidance. However, there were some oversights. They were clear that the assessment process should be improved. The inspectorate's found that, once the recall order for James Wright was issued, police delivered the necessary briefings and updated their systems appropriately. However, they noted that there was a lack of a documented approach and effective oversight in the efforts to apprehend James Wright. It is clear therefore that improvements are absolutely needed and I intend to take immediate action. I would like to make clear at the outset that SPS, Police Scotland and indeed the Scottish Government will accept all of the inspectorate's recommendations. The chief executive of the prison service and the chief constable have given me assurances that, in addition to actions that are already taken, work to implement the recommendations that are being taken forward as the top priority. It is not possible, in the time allotted, to discuss all of the recommendations in detail today. However, I will highlight the main findings common to both reports and set out the immediate actions that are being taken to address them. In terms of the risk assessment, both reviews were clear that the risk assessment process should be strengthened to make decision making procedures more robust. Specifically, the inspectorate's recommended that there should be greater consideration of the potential risk that an individual may pose to the community, improved access to police intelligence to inform decisions, improved support and guidance for staff undertaking assessments and, crucially, a presumption of refusal of home detention curfew where the individual's offence involves certain prior behaviours. In response to the following additional safeguards that are being implemented, there will be a presumption that individuals whose offence involves violence or knife crime will not, in normal circumstances, receive home detention curfew, and we will consider the option of placing that on a statutory basis. We will also look at exclusions for individuals who have known links to serious and organised crime. Police intelligence is now being shared to inform decisions about HDC release, and SPS is adding an additional level of assurance to the HDC assessment process. Governors in charge will now receive recommendations and will decide on HDC release applying consistent criteria. Alongside that, SPS and partners will review the assessment criteria for HDC and will make any necessary, wider improvements. In relation to the governance and procedure, the inspectorates also identified that improvements were needed to ensure greater consistency in HDC processes and to strengthen governance. In response, SPS and Police Scotland are improving the consistency of documentation relating to HDC as a priority. Police Scotland has also taken action to strengthen the governance of activity to apprehend individuals who are unlawfully at large. Those individuals are now discussed at each local area commander's daily tactical briefing, ensuring that clear tasking and supervision arrangements are in place. The inspectorates highlighted shortcomings in the information sharing processes between SPS and Police Scotland in relation to HDC, particularly the status of those who are unlawfully at large. Police Scotland and SPS have already undertaken urgent work to rectify that. In June, they established a working group to review and improve their information sharing and communication processes in relation to HDC. As a result, they now have clear communication processes in place so that information on individuals released on HDC and those subject to recall notices are shared and acted on in real time. That means that efforts can be focused on identifying and apprehending individuals who are unlawfully at large. Consecretly, the number of individuals who are unlawfully at large from HDC has decreased from 54 on 18 June to 8 this morning. The inspectorates found that cross-border arrangements where individuals are released to addresses in England and Wales should be a lot clearer, particularly in relation to notification on release and revocation of HDC licences. SPS and Police Scotland have already taken action on that. They have established single points of contact in all 43 police forces in England and Wales and have developed clear processes to alert those forces in HMPPS to release on HDC to a curfew address in their area and any revocation of those licences. As a further safeguard, Police Scotland is also informed and confirmed that the relevant information is logged on the police national computer. As part of the review, HMICS examined the powers available to Police Scotland to apprehend individuals who remain unlawfully at large. Consecretly, it has recommended that Government considers making remaining unlawfully at large a specific offence. That would also provide associated powers of entry for the police. I accept that recommendation and will consult with criminal justice partners and those across the chamber on the best way forward. If they agree with the proposal, that will be taken forward by way of a stage 2 amendment to the current management of offenders bill scheduled for spring 2019. I believe that the additional safeguards will strengthen the HDC processes at the immediate term by delivering more robust and consistent assessment, improved governance and oversight, what for release decisions and in relation to apprehension, streamlined communication between SPS and Police Scotland and clearer cross-border arrangements. Those immediate actions form part of a wider programme of work to implement all the inspectorist's recommendations. I have made clear to the chief executive of SPS and the chief constable that I expect to see real and demonstrable progress, and I have made it clear to them that the Scottish Government will of course do likewise. Police Scotland and the prison service have established a senior strategic oversight group to drive forward this work. The group involves and includes representation from other criminal justice partners and, indeed, the Scottish Government, and will report on their progress directly to the chief constable and the chief executive of SPS. I have asked the chair of the SPA to maintain oversight of Police Scotland's activity to implement the recommendations with the police. I have also asked HMIPS and HMICS to review progress against their own recommendations in six months. In conclusion, I believe that the immediate actions that I have set out today along with the SPS and Police Scotland undertaking will make HDC processes more robust and will help to strike a balance between support for reintegration and the requirement to protect public safety. I would like to close by reiterating my thanks to Craig McLean's family for their determination and raising their concerns about the operation of HDC. It is through their tenacity, their tireless campaigning on behalf of Craig, that we have got to this point. I want to thank them sincerely for their efforts, as their campaigning means that we will have a stronger, more robust HDC regime. Ensuring that the voices of victims and their families are heard throughout the justice system is a top priority for me and this Government, I will continue to keep Craig's family and this Parliament updated on progress. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised and tend to allow around 20 minutes and then we will move on. Would those who wish to ask a question press a request to speak buttons please? We are already over time, so I would ask you to bear brevity in mind. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I too praise the family of Craig McLean for their bravery and determination in pursuing this matter. Ultimately, that has been a catastrophic failure of the justice system to protect the public. The McLean family and the public will be rightly asking why on earth tragedy had to strike in order for the SNP Government to investigate and ultimately make these changes. For example—I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree—it beggars belief that the prison service and the police were not already sharing information on offenders unlawfully at large. Firstly, he boasts that 80 per cent of those on HDCs complete them. That is a failure rate of one in five, so I ask first of all, is the cabinet secretary really happy with that failure rate? Secondly, the cabinet secretary has pledged to strengthen victims' rights, but there is not a single recommendation in here to do that. He knows well the Michelle's law campaign demands, but there is no commitment to any of those in this statement. I ask simply why and perhaps ask that he put those commitments in. Finally, there were concerns raised in June that the police do not have the necessary powers to force entry to property in cases of breach of HDC or entry to property when criminals are unlawfully at large. Why is there nothing in this statement addressing those concerns? What will the cabinet secretary be doing to address that? To answer his question directly—no, of course I am not happy that 80 per cent is complete and only 80 per cent—I think that the context of that is hugely important. Yes, there is some reflection to be done around those 20 per cent, should we be putting targets on to reduce that 20 per cent? That is a sensible suggestion and let me reflect on that suggestion. No, I am not happy, but at the same time, looking and delving deeper into those 20 per cent, the vast majority of those who do not complete their HDC are recalled back or, indeed, they are technical preachers for not being at the right place at the right time. The majority of those 20 per cent do not go on to commit grave and serious crimes while unlawfully at large, but that is no comfort at all to the McLellan family and that is completely understandable. I think that his point is well made and I just say very clearly that I am not happy at that, but the context is important. He asked me about Michelle's lock. I might go back to him to say that I find often that Liam Kerr might do that and it may well be an advertent, but he is confusing and conflating two separate issues. Michelle's law is largely to do with parole, the issues around parole and then what happens thereafter in relation to release on licence the issue that we are focusing on today is home detention curfew. Why would I make a statement about parole during a statement on home detention curfew? I am not convinced, but I am happy to take that offline. However, to give you some comfort on Michelle's law campaign when I have met the Stewart family and indeed Liam Kerr on this, I have sympathy for every single one of their three major asks. As part of the review and parole that the First Minister agreed to during the programme for government, we will explore every single one of their asks. Some of them I do not think need legislation, but some of them may well do, so I can commit to that. I did address the issues around power of entry. I am sorry if it was not clear enough, but I will reiterate it, which was that one of the recommendations on the inspectorate was making going on lawfully at large in offence. If we do that through perhaps the stage to amendment the management of offenders bill, that will give police the powers of entry that they require, and that is something that the family raised with me this morning, and I am happy to commit to. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. I would also like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Craig McClendon. I know that those reports will answer some of the questions that they have about Craig's murder, but I do hope that the Government will commit to doing whatever it takes to go beyond those reports to answer the remaining questions that the family will have, because let's be clear. This is a murder that is not one that just shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't have been possible. Those reports detail multiple failings. There are clear recommendations for both the prison service and the police, so I would begin by welcoming, and we will back the Government's commitment to give additional powers to the police to deal with those who have breached home detention curfews, which we called for this summer. However, the timeline of events leading to Craig's murder shows that, while the SPS had revoked the home detention curfew on 24 February, it took until 4 May until an address check was carried out by the police. That is truly shocking. Does the cabinet secretary accept that when HDCs are revoked, the police must treat that with the priority that it deserves and have the resources to match? More importantly, the cabinet secretary's remarks point to interagency working and process. My concern is that the multiple failings that are detailed here point to much larger and widespread issues within the agencies themselves. They point to competence and capacity issues of those agencies, not just how they work together. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that? Given all the failings that were detailed in those reports, and indeed the 24 people who have remained at large for more than four years, why has it taken a tragic murder for the Government to investigate the issues that have been revealed? I thank Daniel Johnson for his questions. I will try to go through as many of them as I possibly can. In relation to the family's request for more answers, more questions to be answered. I met them this morning. We had a lengthy meeting, understandably so, for the McLellan family. Most of their questions surrounded Craig's tragic murder. What I said to them was that they should reflect on the reports that will be published at 12.30, and if they would like a further follow-up meeting with me, they are most welcome to have that meeting. I will meet them. They will meet the police and have access to the police and the Scottish Prison Service if they wish. My understanding is that they will meet the police on Monday next week, and then something will be arranged with the SPS. My door very much is open to the McLellan family to do what I can to get to the answers to those specific questions. In relation to the actual incident itself, in some respects Daniel Johnson is absolutely right, of course. The McLellan family told me that, at the time of Craig's murder, people would come up to them to say, oh, it's a shame that Craig was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is nonsense. James Wright was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Craig had every right to go from his house to his mother's house and expect to get there absolutely safely. He's absolutely right that there were some failings in that case. Some of them have been absolutely identified in the inspectorate's reports about documentation, governance, communication, and that is why we will accept all of those recommendations, as will the SPS and Police Scotland. In relation to moving forward and the competency of organisations, that is why I have instructed, after six months, a review to take place on the recommendations, because I want to be absolutely assured that I want to be filled with absolute confidence that those recommendations are being acted on, and I have seen that through the short life working group. I look forward to seeing that review in six months' time. In relation to priority, I agree with his assessment. The inspectorate's clearly highlighted that in both the reports. Going unlawfully at large, somebody going unlawfully at large, must be given greater priority. I am confident that the recommendations that have been accepted will help to move that priority further up the agenda. Can I say that the opening questions and answers have taken much longer than they should, and that will penalise backbenchers. I certainly won't get all the questions in, as many as possible, if people are brief, if possible. George Adam, followed by Margaret Mitchell. The love of his life and the three lovely boys dedicated to his young family and his partner, Stacey, is loved by all his family. He is more than the tragic story that we have before us today. Today, Craig's family and myself met with the cabinet secretary to discuss both reports. I thank the cabinet secretary for confirming that the dialogue will continue. Those are tragic circumstances, and none of us can bring Craig back. However, what we can do, and what the family wants to know, is how we protect others from going through the same grief. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how we can take those recommendations and ensure that no other families have to endure this heartbreak? Can he explain how we translate those recommendations into legislation, and what form that might take? I thank George Adam for accompanying the family on many occasions. I know publicly that they have had to have various meetings with various public agencies, and meetings with myself. I know that he has always been a great supporter of the family and to get the answers that they absolutely deserve. In relation to directly answering his questions, I highlighted in my statement that there is a potential to bring forward the United States to amendment of the management of offenders bill. We will explore that with members of the chamber, of course, but also with other stakeholders, if that is the most appropriate and quickest way of bringing that offence and that change in legislation forward. Information sharing was also one of the key themes of both reports. I can confirm that the oversight group will continue the work of the working group, as it was, to ensure that SPS and Police Scotland have continued good sharing of information, but also good governance. The last point that I will make is that the exclusion and non-eligibility of those who are in prison for violence or, indeed, carrying a knife and potentially for their links to see us organise crimes is something that we will take forward very much as quickly as we possibly can. Practically, that can be done relatively quickly as a presumption and, hopefully, relatively quickly on a statutory basis, too. The review says that the assessment process should be improved, for example, by giving improved access to police intelligence to informed decision. It also highlights shortcomings in communication and information sharing between SPS and Police Scotland, particularly regarding the status of those unlawfully at large. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if either of those issues or any of its other recommendations have a direct bearing on the chief constable's call for the £300 million funding for what he describes as the vital new IT project to support and ensure that Police Scotland can get on with doing its job? I am saying you, sir. I thank Michael Mitchell. That is a very good question. I do not think that it does have bearing on that. The police are now starting to share that information and that intelligence very closely with SPS. It does not seem to be a block because of the IT. That does not seem to be a stumbling block, if that is her direct question. However, when I was in front of her committee, I understood the importance of the ICT proposal from Police Scotland. It is sympathetic, but it will undoubtedly come down to questions of affordability. On her specific question, I do not think that it has a bearing on that, certainly not from what I have seen. The police tell me that they can act on those recommendations and act on those relatively quickly. Neil Bibby, followed by John Finnie. The murder of Craig Macleiland has shocked and horrified my community. Having met with Craig's family and spoken with his father earlier today, it is impossible not to be moved by their strength, their dignity or their determination to get the answers that they deserve. Like the cabinet secretary, Craig's father told me that someone said that someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he had every right to be there in his own community. The man convicted of his murder did not. I welcome those reports, but it is clear for the family that there are still many unanswered questions. Why was locating this offender not a priority? Why was this murder assessed to be low risk? Why has the system so dramatically failed? To be absolutely clear, will the justice secretary give a public commitment today to work with the family to find the answers that they need and the truth that they seek? Very simply, yes, I will. I gave that commitment to the family. I am more than happy to speak, of course, to Neil Bibby, if he wishes about some of the actions that will take forward. What I have asked the family to do is to take away the reports that they are, as you can imagine, lengthy reports—I am sure that he has seen them—to digest those reports and to come back to me if they want to have further meetings with me. Equally, they are having meetings with the police and I understand the Scottish Prison Service as well. There may well be many questions that the cell feel need answered. I am more than happy to work with the family to do my best to get them. On the risk assessment that Neil Bibby mentions, it is a key theme right throughout both reports. The fact that the risk assessment should give higher priority to whether or not public safety could be compromised or affected by somebody going on HTC is a very welcome recommendation, I should say, in the reports, which is one that all of us, all the partners, but, in particular, in this case, SPS, will take forward immediately. John Finnie, followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary very sight of the report and the thoughts, of course, are with Craig's family and friends. A precautionary principle should apply, cabinet secretary, and had it. We wouldn't have this feeling. I welcome your making remaining unlawfully at large a specific offence and there are complexities about that, because, of course, the report talks about people at large outwith our jurisdiction. Within that jurisdiction, can you give an assurance that, when bringing forward that amendment at stage 2, you will not intend granting the power of arrest or the power of entry to any private company that may be monitoring the home detention scheme? Yes. I am in the same vein of thinking as John Finnie, but, clearly, bringing forward legislation, be it through a stage 2 amendment or otherwise, will give us the opportunity to discuss those issues in great detail and in great length, but I have to say that my gut, certainly, is in the same place as John Finnie is here. Making an offence within legislation should mean that it should be the police that are apprehending, arresting or, indeed, having the power of entry when somebody goes on off that large. Liam McArthur, followed by Ruth Mackay. I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement, and on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, pay tribute to Craig Maclellan's family for their determination that their tragic loss should lead to improvements in our system of HTC. The inspectorate's report highlights the failures in HTC and the extent to which those illegally at large wear off the radar of police and the prison service. In that context, can the cabinet secretary outline the specific steps that are being taken to address what appears to be a patchwork of IT systems operated by the police and the prison services that appear to have contributed to this shocking and needless tragedy? To Liam McArthur, similar to my answer to Margaret Mitchell's question, it does not make it clear that the necessary IT was the issue, but basic information should be shared and will contribute to making our HTC system and processes more robust. Where there is an IT block to that, yes, of course, that discussion needs to take place. I have already mentioned my understanding of the proposals from Police Scotland to improve their IT systems, but in that case, sharing information, even at a most basic level, could strengthen and would strengthen the HTC system, the HTC regime, but that does not require an upgrade in IT systems unless I am told otherwise by SPS or by Police Scotland. If that is the case, I will have those discussions with my partner agencies. Ruth Maguire, followed by Maurice Corry. The Scottish Government and indeed the cabinet secretary have committed to developing a victim-centred approach across the criminal justice system. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how changes being proposed to the home detention curfew fit in with this very important commitment? I thank Ruth Maguire for that. In my discussions with Craig McClellan's family this morning, I mentioned the victims task force, which I will set up. I have said that the victims and the families of victims' input into that task force will be incredibly important, and I have invited them, the McClellan family to send representatives as part of that discussion. I think that what we are doing on HTC is absolutely vital and important to that work, but, equally, the McClellan family mentioned to me what they thought were a number of gaps within the entire criminal justice system from the moment that terrible tragedy happened, to even more recently than that. I think that we owe it to the victims to make sure that their rights are absolutely strengthened and, of course, the victims task force will absolutely be a part of that. I go back to my question to Neil Bibby's question, that the risk assessment process will also be really, really important in this sense for the victim because it will be around public safety being given a greater emphasis within that risk assessment process, hopefully giving the public more reassurance and more confidence on HTC. The last question goes to Maurice Corry. Maurice Corry commit today to supporting an amendment to the management of offenders bill to make breaching a tagging order an automatic offence, as, indeed, the Scottish Women's Aid has called for recently. Hamza Yousaf? Yes, I think that I have answered that in a couple of ways in my statement, but also from questions from others. I am more than happy to look at that as a proposal. I will consider that with members of the chamber here, but I will consider that with stakeholder organisations such as the Scottish Women's Aid and many others, but I am more than happy to listen to Maurice Corry's suggestions and feedback and other members' feedback on that suggestion. Whatever is the quickest way and the most appropriate way to bring an offence of going unlawful at a large forward, I will do that. I am sorry that I have been unable to call Jackie Baillie, Willie Coffey, Rona Mackay and John Mason, but we must close questions in this statement and move on to the next item of business.