 The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on deaths in 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, up to 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In November 2019, my predecessor commissioned an independent review into the response to deaths in prison custody in recognition of the need for increased transparency and better engagement with families following a death in custody. That review was published on 30 November last year. On that date, I made a statement accepting in principle all of the recommendations made by the review. I also made a commitment to provide Parliament with an update on progress made against the recommendations by summer 2022, and I would like to honour that commitment. I wish to begin by refreshing members' memories of the purpose of the review. 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 the SPS and the NHS, including deaths of prisoners whilst in NHS care. The review did that, and most importantly, it highlighted ways that the response to an experience of families could be made more consistent and improved, so as to provide prompt answers, transparency and compassion. The review recommended two pillars of trauma-informed practice that should underpin every interaction with families at all points along the justice journey, including if a family experiences bereavement through a death of a loved one in SPS care. Those two pillars are choice and control, and it is my absolute commitment that choice and control, as well as compassion and transparency, will be woven into our justice system so as to better deliver for families. At the beginning of this year, I held a round table with key agencies and family members who have provided expert views and lived experience to the review to map what needed to be done to deliver on the recommendations and to gain agreement from all to make the necessary changes at pace. It was agreed by all that there were real benefits to this work being externally led. In April, I appointed Gillian Emery, formerly HM chief inspector of constabulary, as an external chair to provide independent oversight and leadership to the implementation of all the recommendations of the review. Gillian Emery has already met all relevant stakeholders and has established a death and prison custody action group to oversee and drive forward the programme of work necessary to make the suggested improvements to operational practices and to meet the recommendations. This group met for the first time yesterday, and agencies have already indicated early changes to the way that they respond to families and handle deaths in custody internally, with commitment to making longer term improvements over the coming few months. I also met with Ms Emery yesterday in the first of a series of regular progress updates with her, and I am assured of improvements being implemented by all agencies. The external chair has committed to publishing a written update in November this year. This will provide on-going transparency to all the important work being progressed across this policy area. I am moving on to improvements being made by the agencies. The SPS is piloting an electronic form that allows family members to flag any serious concerns that they might have about the health and wellbeing of a loved one in prison. At this form and its submission process has been user tested by third sector partners and prison monitor coordinators, which has identified that mental health concerns and suicidality are readily flagged, but physical health concerns are not. The form has therefore undergone additional refinements and will be further tested for efficacy. The SPS is also seeking to improve early access for prisoners to emergency bells and for staff to equipment, such as ligature cutters and privacy screens. Those practices are being reviewed and, in some instances, have already been actioned. Privacy screens are now in place in the majority of prisons with the remainder in train to be put in place. Active consideration has been given to the best model for ensuring ready access to ligature cutters, and I am confident that this will be resolved in the very near future. The SPS is in agreement with the review recommendation that prison governors should be the next point of contact with families after the police as soon as possible after a death, and has already implemented this as best practice and a number of establishments. In relation to NHS improvements, the NHS has taken the lead on the development of a suite of training packages for NHS and SPS staff, including equipping staff with coping skills and responding to deaths and custody, and has developed a process whereby prison nurses can provide confirmation of death, thus reducing the pressure on the Scottish ambulance service. This process has already been cascaded to all health boards, and further training to prison nurses will follow as soon as possible. I am linking to this. Within the next two months, the NHS will have developed a pathway agreed with the SPS, which outlines the responsibilities of healthcare and operational staff following a death and custody. As the head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, the Lord Advocate has responsibility for the investigation of all sudden suspicious and unexplained deaths. Any decision of the Lord Advocate in this capacity is taken independently of any other person. In my previous statement to Parliament, I explained that the key recommendation 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 FEI, which is presided over by the judiciary. It was made clear that the recommendation around the independent body does not and should not replace any of the current inquiry processes. The Lord Advocate agreed in principle with the recommendation, and the Crown Office is providing contributions as a key stakeholder. Turning now to the key recommendation, which is that an independent investigation should be undertaken into each death and prison custody carried out by a body wholly independent of the Scottish ministers, the SPS, the private prison operators and the NHS. My officials have constituted a working group of key agencies, the remit of which is to design a gold standard investigative process to review each death, identify lessons to be learnt and to provide prompt answers and a single point of contact to families. The Scottish Government and the Crown Office are working closely and collaboratively to ensure that the new approach functions seamlessly in tandem with and parallel to existing investigative processes, which need to take place when a death in custody occurs. The group is furthermore considering options as to the most suitable independent public body to take on the new approach within the current fiscal climate. In April, my officials held a round table with the ombudsman and senior investigators of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to hear from them how deaths in custody are investigated in their jurisdictions. The implementation of the key recommendations will bring us in line with those jurisdictions, and there are lessons to learn from them in terms of good practice and key areas to be improved on when we create our own approach. A key takeaway from this meeting was the need for our approach not only to make recommendations, but also to have the statutory power to enforce them. I want to ensure that changes are made to processes when someone dies in custody are meaningful, that they meet the family's expectations and that they radically improve the response to families when a death of a loved one incurs in prison. However, it does take time to effect meaningful change and for changes to have teeth. They may require to be made in statute, which is dependent on parliamentary timetabling. It is imperative that, as we move at pace to improve operational processes, we do not lose sight that, at the heart, we are striving to improve our response to bereaved families. I want to be clear that I regard families as our most important stakeholders, as key consultants, as we progress implementing the recommendations and, indeed, as co-designers of the new investigative process. I am adamant that we will only consistently deliver a trauma-informed compassionate service when we afford families the twin loci of choice and control. I wish to reiterate my commitment to giving this choice and control to families at each and every touchpoint by public agencies. That applies to Police Scotland, the SPS, the NHS, the Scottish Government and the Crown Office when a family experiences a loss through a death in prison custody. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if all those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request to speak buttons now. I call Jamie Greene. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of today's statement. I thank Gillian Emory for the work that she has done on this, but I think that we as the Parliament should send our deepest condolences to the many families who have been affected by a death in custody in Scotland. The statistics are truly shocking. Scotland has one of the highest rates of deaths in prison in Europe. Last year, 54 people sadly lost their lives in custody and that is a 60 per cent increase on the year before. Behind every single number is a life-lost Callum English, Stephen Sweeney and Rhys Fergraith, and who can forget the tragedies of Katie Allen and William Lindsay in Paulmont? All those points are systemic failures in deaths in custody in Scotland. I welcome the Government's commitment to the recommendations, especially that of an independent inquiry into each and every death in custody, but I would like to ask three very specific questions of the cabinet secretary around his statement today. Given that deaths in custody are already subject to fatal accident inquiries, it is so vital that there is no delay in that taking place as a result of any new potential investigative processes. Will that be the case or not? Secondly, given that FAIs are shockingly taking three or four years just to commence, and even when they do conclude that nine in 10 of them make no recommendations for any improvements at all, does the cabinet secretary back families' calls for much swifter commencement to and resolution to FAIs and, more importantly, that they result in meaningful change thereafter? Finally, what steps will the cabinet secretary take to ensure that both prison officers and families of the deceased are not retraumatised by the entire process of having to give evidence multiple times potentially to multiple and differing inquiries? First of all, I want to say in relation to whether the FAI process may result in a delay or vice versa if this new process results in a delay in FAIs. That is why I think trying to avoid that situation is why we have involved the Crown Office in all the discussions that we have had so far. They are stakeholders in the various working groups that are mentioned, and it is trying to meet those two things work complementarily rather than to get in front of each other. That is our commitment to try and do that, and we are not doing that on a roll, we are doing that with the Crown Office. Also, he mentions the need for swifter FAIs, and I think that the Crown Office and it is for the Crown Office to answer in relation to this, of course, but they are committed to that, and we have seen real progress in that in recent years, not least because of additional resources, in particular in relation to staff that have allowed the Crown Office to further increase the pace that FAIs are done under. There have been one or two examples that we are all aware of, which have taken a very long period of time, I accept that point, but generally there is an improving picture, and it is for the Crown Office to take that forward. As it is in relation to meaningful recommendations at the end of it, again, I cannot supplant the role of the Lord Advocate in relation to that, but I know that she has also seized of the need to make sure that meaningful actions come from FAIs. On the last point, which was whether we try to avoid prison officers and others being coming re-traumatising, it is a very good point made, and I made the same point when the report first came out from the author of the report to say that we have to consider the impact on prison officers in relation to this, where they can be traumatised just as much as anybody else by witnessing a death in custody. We are seized of the need to do that as to the different processes, whether they would contribute to that re-traumatising. I think that we are aware of the danger of that, but we will try to make sure that is addressed as we take through the various workstreams that have already been mentioned. Thank you. Scotland must have the highest standards of welfare and safety of persons detained in prisons and other facilities. As already said, Scotland has an unacceptably high number of deaths in custody. Firstly, I want to welcome some of the commitments to improve the system, particularly by allowing families to flag up any series of concerns that they have about their family members' physical health, suggesting in the statement that mental health and suicidality are already flagged up. However, I know, cabinet secretary, of cases where families have raised concerns about their families in prison who are in serious distress, and that has not always been acted on with the level of urgency. I want to be clear that that will be included when we look at processing new systems. I also want to have the assurance of the cabinet secretary that families will be able to properly record welfare concerns. I also ask in the pillars referred to in the statement why the pillar and the important principle of timely answers to deaths in custody and timely information about the circumstances would have been quite an important principle to guide ourselves through a new system. In particular, the independent report recommended unfettered access to information in the event of death in custody. I believe that the Government is committed to that, but I will continue to ask what that amount will ensure that families will be giving access to information as the information unfolds. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that one of the main purposes of changing the system is to give families full confidence in any new process that will correct the mistakes of the past, where they feel that information has been kept from them and that it takes far too long to get answers for death in custody. I thank Pauline McNeill for her questions. On the first point that she raised, I think that she is right in saying that general health concerns, rather than specifically suicidality or mental health concerns, are popularly recorded. That is the point that I was trying to make. A new electronic process has been developed, and it found out during the course of that that it was not doing exactly what Pauline McNeill has asked for, so it is now changing that process to make sure that general health concerns are also recorded as well. On our point, whether families will have full confidence in the process, that is what we are aiming to achieve. We have got a more basic achievement to get before we get to that, which is to give basic courtesy and information whenever it is possible to do so from families. I am the first to concede that that has not always happened in the past, so that is our intention. As the timeliness will be going back to the questions that Jamie Greene mentioned, it will be trying to make sure that the two processes that might apply are dovetailed as far as possible. It might be possible to do that to ensure that we have, which I think that it will be possible to do that to the aim that we have here, to make sure that, especially in straightforward cases, the information that is available can be passed on to the families as quickly as possible. That is the attention. One additional word is also true that victims should have notifications as well. That is being addressed by some of the recommendations that are already taken forward by the Prison Service in terms of publicising on their website the fact that somebody has died in prison. Those are the aims of what we are trying to do here. I will now move to backbench members. I would just point out that we are already over time in terms of what time is allotted to each front-bencher to ask their questions, so hopefully that does not impact on backbenchers. I call Audrey Nicoll to be followed by Russell Finlay. As the cabinet secretary and other members have already referenced, it goes without saying that one life lost in custody is one life too many. I ask the cabinet secretary to reaffirm the Scottish Government's intentions to treat this serious issue with all the sensitivity and priority that it deserves. That is exactly our intention. I would also say that we have to remember that prisons are dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in society already, and there is no getting round the fact that being put in prison is a traumatic thing to happen to most people. I am absolutely committed to making improvements to the response to and the experience of families impacted by a death in custody. Families are not people who have been sent to prison. They have somebody in their family in prison, so we have to provide them with, as Pauline McNeill says, prompt answers and ensure a compassionate approach. That is why we have commissioned two independent interviews, one into the provision of mental health services, provided to young people in Pullmont and the other into responses to death in custody. I have appointed the external chair, I have mentioned Gillian Imae, to oversee the work on the implementation of those recommendations. I call Russell Finlay to be followed by Rona Mackay. Drugs kill far too many in society and in our prisons. The cabinet secretary previously said that he hoped to achieve drugs-free prisons, but just this week, a senior boss at HMP Barlinnie said that they can never be eradicated inside. Indeed, prison officers tell me how they are often threatened by organised criminals to smuggle drugs, so under this new process what support will be given to prison officers who may find themselves involved in any investigation involving a drug's death? I have recently discussed this very issue with the governor at Socton prison. I know members at the committee have also visited HMP Edinburgh as well. They have well-developed practices in relation to supporting the prison officers that are there, but they do not yet have, in that particular prison, the same body scanner that they have at Barlinnie, which has been, I am told, extremely effective at Barlinnie. In addition to that, as well as the photocopying of documents that are being done in many of our prisons, we are starting to see real progress in reducing the incidence of drugs in prison. The comment that has been made by Russell Finlay quoting somebody at Barlinnie, it is impossible to do that. Whether that is the case or not, in that person's view, we have to aim to eradicate drugs from our prison. I think that it is the continued training of our prison officers, making sure that they have that support. Very often, it butts up against things to do with serious organised crime and people convicted of those offences in prisons, but taking forward the new technological opportunities that we have, I am content that we can make further progress in eradicating drugs from our prisons. Can the cabinet secretary advise what steps have been taken to help to improve the transparency of data on deaths in custody? We have undertaken a number of initiatives in relation to data. I have mentioned already the fact that, in relation to advising people that we will see this being put up on the SPS website, so we have to make sure that that is collated and the data is used. I think that it is also true to say that this is one of the things that will be looked at by the working group that I mentioned in relation to the work that has been taken forward by Gilla Emery, so I expect to be able to give more information on how we can improve data in the future statement. The Shaco Bio-Inquiry, which relates to police-related death, started giving evidence seven years after the death. It is currently, in its first stage, out of fourth stage, and I understand that it may not take four years to report. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the recommendations of this substantial inquiry are implemented? We always listen carefully to the recommendations that are made by a public inquiry. In fact, to be fair, that is done by all Governments, so we would do the same again. There is an implication in the member's question about the length of time that it has taken to get to this stage, and I understand that. Other concerns that have been expressed to me about people appointed to chair inquiries that sometimes can be unwell and the delays that that can cause as well. As the member knows, that is not an issue for me. The public inquiries are independent and we want to respect that independence. I call Evan Tweed to be followed by Leigh MacArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The first death in custody since 2019 at Compton Vale in my constituency is currently under investigation, and I would like to extend condolences to the person's family and friends. What steps are being taken to minimise the risk of deaths in custody at Compton Vale, and how will the on-going rebuilding of the prison assessed with this? We have set some very bold and progressive plans for the new female custodial estate in Scotland. Those include a smaller national prison in Stirling, as the member mentions, built on the current Compton Vale site. That will accommodate around 80 women with the most complex needs, together with an assessment centre focused on identifying the needs of all women who come into prison custody. Alongside the new facilities, we will be adopting a new approach to working with women in prison. SPS, in partnership with multidisciplinary teams, will work to create a recovery-based ethos that responds to the specific needs of women in custody, and all aspects of the approach will be gender-specific and trauma-informed. The SPS strategy for women is aligned with the national trauma training framework. I thank the cabinet secretary for an early sight of his statement and welcome the recommendation that an independent investigation should be undertaken into each death in custody. Will the Government set a maximum threshold for how long families might wait for such a review to begin? What guarantees can the justice secretary give families who often find it incredibly difficult to navigate legal proceedings like those, that they will get the support that they need to be fully engaged, including universal access to legal aid? I am sorry, but perhaps I missed the start of the question to try to understand which inquiry Liam McArthur is talking about. If it is in relation to the work that is on-going here, we expect to report back to Parliament in November. There is not an inquiry process related to that, unless what the member is saying is when they make an inquiry, how quickly can it be processed? I am sorry, I did not catch the start of what was said. Or, if his question relates to a public inquiry and support for families at public inquiries, would you look at those issues? For example, in the current public inquiry assistance that the member knows, because he has written to me on that issue, we have a role in funding and making sure that we facilitate public inquiries to make sure that they have the most comprehensive information and witnesses possible, so that they will continue to do that. In relation to the process, we want to see the maximum possible access given to families when they have suffered from anethym custody, and that might be consistent with some of the things that I said previously. If I misunderstood the member's question, I would be happy to come back to him. I call Ruth Maguire, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Maggie Chapman. Ruth Maguire. I have completed the cabinet secretary's comments on families and accessibility and the way that they can raise concerns about health and well-being. Ms Maguire, sorry, something cuts out at the very beginning of your question. Could you please start the question again? Thank you. Sure. Presiding Officer, I appreciated hearing the cabinet secretary's comments on families and the importance of compassion and the steps that are being taken to increase accessibility. However, can I ask about suicide prevention and whether the cabinet secretary can provide an update on the steps that are being taken to provide mental health support to people in prisons, specifically with regard to that? Can I say that the safe treatment of any mental health issues of all those in custody is a priority for our prisons and the prison service takes those issues very seriously. We know, of course, that people in custody, for reasons that I have already mentioned, present higher levels of risk and vulnerabilities in their general populations a whole, and they often come with complex mental health needs. However, a cross-portfolio ministerial working group has been formed to identify the current issues that are facing the justice system in relation to mental health and to look at ways to bring forward urgent and creative solutions to those issues. SPS, though, has also reissued revised top-to-me guidance to all staff to make clear the circumstances in which a risk assessment and or healthcare assessments should be carried out, and those remain in place and did so right throughout the pandemic. I call Mackie Chapman, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Jackie Dunbar, Ms Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement and I welcome his intention to implement their recommendations. One purpose of the new process of independent investigation will be to improve the experiences of families of those who die in custody, and that is absolutely vital. But another purpose must be to learn lessons about how to prevent future deaths in custody. Can the cabinet secretary outline how any learning from the screen process will make its way into appropriate changes in policy, practice or operations to prevent future deaths, and what we can do to ensure that both independent investigation and the FAI are held in a tiny manner? I think that the assurance that I would give to the member is the fact that the people concerned in this area, Jill Emory, but also the inspector of prisons in Scotland, are people who are well versed with the current situation in terms of prisons and they are well seized of those issues. There is more work to be done, as I have just mentioned, in relation to mental health issues. The member also mentioned, first of all, the role of families. What I was very impressed with when I met the families was the knowledge that they had, first-hand, a lived experience of sometimes very traumatic events. We want to make sure that the lived experience of those families informs in new ways in which we can try to bring further deaths in prison. We know that a preventative, supportive and not punitive approach is the best way to ensure that people in Scotland do not come to harm while in custody. Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree with me that those in custody must have full access to mental health care and support? Can he outline how the Scottish Government is achieving the subjective? I would imagine that there is unanimity in the chamber that those in prisons should have the same level of care, whether it is in terms of mental health or physical wellbeing, as those not in custody. We did make this clear in our mental health transition and recovery plan, which was published in October 2020. I have mentioned already the ministerial working group. In addition, the SPS is working in partnership with mental health experts to co-produce a devised mental health strategy for those in custody, and that will be informed by a suite of health needs assessments on prisons, including one on mental health, which will be published by the Government later this year. They are also working in partnership with NHS prison healthcare colleagues to ensure that due consideration is given to pre-liberation planning that will support transfer of care on release. That is really about through care and the consistency of support for some people who can be extremely vulnerable, both whilst they are in prison and when they are first released. It is reassuring to hear the cabinet secretary state that active consideration is being given to the best model for ensuring ready access to ligature cutters, a hugely important piece of preventative equipment that could save lives. In Scotland, SPS staff are having to collect ligature cutters from a communal area. In England and Wales, they have been introduced for all front-line staff. The cabinet secretary likes using the phrase at pace, so when will this vital tool be made accessible? I have already made clear the pace at which we are looking at that issue in terms of the prisons, and in some cases that is currently being dealt with. However, I think that it is fairly obvious to most people that the presence of ligature cutters can also represent a threat, especially in a prison environment. The fact that the SPS, that Gill Emory and all those concerned are trying to do this in a way that maximises the safety of staff and prisoners is the right approach. It has been dealt with just now, it is not waiting for the further review that I mentioned or the further update that has been dealt with now, it is currently the case in many prisons and I am sure that it will be rolled out in a safe way in all prisons in due course. That concludes the statement. I will allow a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business in the event that front bench teams wish to change places or not.