 The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on justice system approach to risk assessment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Keith Brown. I'd like to update Parliament on an issue affecting the level of service and case management system, also known as the LSCMI system. lSCMI has been used since 2006 six in Scotland as a paper-based system and the LSCMI system has been used as an IT system in Scotland since 2010. It supports risk assessment and case management for individuals with a history of offending. The LSCMI system is used as one part of a wider set of processes by social work and prison staff to inform a number of decision points within the criminal justice system, including sentencing decisions, programmes, access and prison release decisions. In 2019, the system was centralised, and as of 22 November 2021, all 32 local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service, who previously each hosted the system locally, were migrated on to a centralised IT system. The LSCMI risk assessment tool is not the only risk assessment that is used within the justice system. There are a number of different tools used for a variety of different types of offenders, and this issue relates only to the LSCMI risk assessment tool. There are a number of validated risk assessment tools to support and inform professionals in their decision making. That includes risk assessment tools specifically related to violent offending, sexual offending and to intimate partner violence and stalking. In the prison environment, for example, the LSCMI is used as one of a suite of risk assessment tools. The choice of risk assessment tool in this context is partly influenced by the nature of the index offence. The management of the assessed risk is governed by a multidisciplinary team of professionals referred to as the risk management team, which is chaired by a prison senior manager supported by a range of professionals, including but not limited to criminal justice, social work, psychologists, health professionals, Police Scotland, local authorities, chaplaincy and third sector agencies. The challenge of assessing and managing risks draws together this diverse range of professions in the shared objective of protecting the public by preventing or minimising harm. A recurring theme in risk management practice is the need to balance the safety of potential victims with the human rights of the offender, and this multidisciplinary approach involving a range of professionals is also often used for managing individuals within the community setting. Risk assessment is dynamic and, as you can see, it is holistic in its nature. It is never based on one assessment within the system. I will explain in detail the circumstances relating to two issues that have been identified and outline the precautionary measures that have been taken at every step to ensure confidence in Scotland's public protection arrangements are maintained. I apologise in advance for the somewhat technical explanation around some of the factors at play. Given the importance of the issues, it is right that we take this precautionary approach. Following a call that was raised by a user at the help desk for the system in January of this year about a single case, the system issue was explored by the IT managed service provider for LSEMI and by the risk management authority who both provide a help desk service for the system. That works out to understand if this was an issue affecting just a particular user or if it was more widespread. Following those detailed investigations that became apparent last week that this was an issue affecting other users of the system, test scripts were immediately developed to identify affected cases. At the particular systems issue affects the display of information in the risk assessment part of the system. The numerical risk score value in some particular instances does not match the risk score level displayed by the system. A systems issue appears to be preventing any subsequent changes made to that risk level when new information has been entered. As of this week there were 103,394 assessments in total on the live system. Of course individuals can have more than one assessment. There are approximately 24,000 open cases on the live system and open cases is one where there is some on-going management of the individual on the justice system that requires use of LSEMI. I have advised that from the work carried out over the weekend there are 1,317 assessments where the calculated score did not match the final risk need level. Of those assessments affected, 1,032 relate to closed cases and 285 relate to open cases. The system has an ability for social work to override the risk level shown on the system. Of the 1,032 closed cases there are 537 cases where an override has been applied by social work. That is the professional judgment that has been applied to a risk assessment. That means that there will be 495 of those closed cases, which appear to contain a risk level that is affected by the system error. The remaining 537 with an override applied will of course need a case-by-case review to determine if the override superseded any error. Officials have taken immediate action to review open cases that the justice system is still managing and I will say more about that review process shortly. On Friday of last week my officials issued an immediate update to users of the system, justice social work principally but also to SPF staff, making them aware of the issue and providing a temporary solution so that cases could be identified on the system and a form of override applied. Work is on going to identify the specific cases affected and on Tuesday my officials issued details of the open cases and locations of those cases to users of the system, asking them to specifically review risk levels and scores and take any necessary actions. The action in those cases will have been for users of the system to determine if the risk level shown for the cases that they manage was correct and to apply an override if not. Users of the system were also asked to involve partners if there was any impact on the ongoing management of that individual within the justice system. My officials are assembling returns from users of the system as they do so and to date 150 returns have been received. No users of the system, social worker or SPF, have advised the Scottish Government of any public protection risk as a result of the system's issue. That is worth repeating. No users of the system, social worker or Scottish Prison Service have advised the Scottish Government of any public protection risk as a result of the system's issue. Justice social workers, whether community or prison-based, are trained professionals and will always apply professional judgment to every individual that they manage. The nature of risk assessment is holistic, as I have said, and it is wide-ranging. It is not making the stick, it is not ever solely based on the LSCMI risk assessment tool. Further to the initial error that has been investigated, as described above, as part of that investigation, previous change laws and help desk calls have been reviewed in parallel to explore any issues that interact with the system's issue. It seems only sensible to do that. It does appear from those investigations that there may be another area of risk scoring relating to alcohol drug use that creates an error. Whilst the extent of this is not known, it is clear that it may affect the risk score. The initial evidence on the system as presently reported indicates that the score is likely to be higher rather than lower, i.e. to overstate risk rather than understate it. Given the second issue that has now been identified as potentially affecting cases, I have again, as a precautionary measure, to ensure that we take no risks with public protection issues, agreed the following actions. All social workers have been asked to review all open cases on the following priority basis by first looking at cases due for imminent consideration of release from prison or for entry into MAPA or onto licence. Just as social workers have been asked to move with immediate effect the paper-based system, which is the agreed contingency plan around any system failure. The extensive support that has been put in place from Community Justice Scotland around any immediate training implications, although other risk assessment tools in the system are paper-based, so that system will be familiar to many professionals in the system. We are also working with the IT company that manages the system, and if necessary, additional expert IT capacity will also be deployed to assist with what we now need to do, which is a rigorous assurance process of every element of the system. I have convened a risk review group, which we led by the risk management authority to work through as a matter of priority the opening and close cases to make an assessment of whether those errors will have made an impact on how that case was managed in the system. I should reiterate from this work, it is to provide further reassurance, not because we are aware of any issues around management of offenders due to this issue. I am keen that this work includes swiftly, for obvious reasons, and of course willing and eager to report back to Parliament on the outcome of that, as soon as that group has concluded its work or has initial findings that it is appropriate to share. In terms of further actions, officials have written out to other justice partners with their interests in these matters, including Police Scotland, the Parole Board of Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Children's Reporters' Administration. Officials have also written to victims organisations to ensure that they are cited on this issue and that they can offer necessary reassurance around the work that is currently in hand. If any of the victims' organisations would find it reassuring to meet with me, so I am able to reassure them around the actions taken then, of course, I am more than happy to make that offer and to involve them in those processes. I have also written to the Justice Committee today to make them aware of this issue and will continue to update them as more information is known. It is important to reiterate that, as a result of this issue, no concerns have been expressed by social workers, both in the community and in prison, around any offenders within the justice system. Our approach will always be precautionary and evidence-based. I am updating Parliament about this issue to ensure openness and transparency, but I hope that the steps that have already been taken and the openness with which we are dealing with the matter provide members with some reassurance. I have confidence in the professionalism of our justice and health professionals who everyday manage changing and involving risk across a range of offenders. As has been explained, LSEMI will never be the sole determinant of how the justice system deals with the risk of an individual. There is much more by way of judgment and process involved and will often involve a range of multidisciplinary professionals who are never just following what is displayed on the system. I am very grateful to them for all their continued support in ensuring that we retain confidence around how we protect the public from offending behaviour as we move forward from this. I will, as I have said, continue to update Parliament on this matter as is appropriate and happy to take any questions. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues 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. I will be grateful if members who wish to ask the question please press your request to speak buttons now or please put an R in the chat stream of all blue jeans. I call Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We know why this mysterious last-minute statement on justice was kept quiet until it was released to us. Wow, cabinet secretary, clouded in jargon. It all sounds like a simple technical error off the back of another bungled IT centralisation project, but the reality could not be more stark or actually shocking, Presiding Officer, because these are vital systems that are used to score criminals and the risk to the public before they are released early. So the admission today that there are potentially hundreds of cases where the risk for assessing that danger was wrong will and should be a source of grave concern to us all. 495 of them are shocking. The justice secretary will reassure us, of course, that officials have checked 150 of them so far and tells us that no users of the system have advised the Government of any public protection risk whatsoever as a result of this so-called systems issue. The key word he missed out here is yet. They haven't found any public protection risk yet because they don't know the full picture yet. Trying to disguise this in technical jargon is one thing, but let me try and get some immediate clarity for the public out there. Cabinet Secretary, one, how many prisoners were released early or wrongly that shouldn't have? Two, when are the public going to find out if they've been put at risk in any way whatsoever by any of this gross incompetence? And three, will the justice secretary categorically rule out right now the early release of any prisoner whose risk assessment to the public is wrong or even might be wrong? Can I say first of all that the member makes reference to, if I forget how he described it, a centralisation process in a derogatory way? It may well be the case and we don't know this as yet. The centralisation part of this, which happened in 2019, is a mean by which it was a technical glitch where however you'd like to try and describe it, there's a technical problem with the programme. That may well be how it was discovered by the centralisation so that all the councils and the prison service are on the same system. So it may well be that that's what's helped us to find us out in the first place. And I've also mentioned the fact that the work is on-going. We were advised of this last Friday, the work that's been going on both over the weekend and right up to this point has led us to the statement that I've made and some of the facts which have given you, but there's more to be done. I've been very clear about that. There is no way around the technical information. I would have been slated had I not given the technical information behind this. And also, it's true to say as well, I would like to have come to this chamber and I'm perfectly willing to admit with all the facts in front of me, but there's also the pressure to try and tell Parliament as soon as possible. And I've conceded the fact that there'll be more information to come out and that's why I'm happy to report to Parliament in future. They asked the question about whether anybody's been released and I've given them the facts as I know them, which is that all the returns that have come back so far indicate no risk of somebody having been released early. On the second point, which is to do with the alcohol factors, it may well be the case that the risk was overstated in that case. But again, we have to wait till more facts come forward. So there is no evidence, as yet, to you've rightly said, of any risk to the public, of anybody being released when they shouldn't be. As I've said, there will be more to emerge. It's not the 495 cases that you've talked about, it's the 200 plus that I mentioned, 150 of which have come back so far. Although it's also true to say there's a much bigger piece of work to go back through the history of this right back to 2012 and make sure that even the closed cases that we've got it right and released into those as well. I'm trying to be as open as possible as I can be when I'm happy to come back to Parliament and answer more questions on this in future when we have more information. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this urgent matter to the attention of Parliament. I would also say that it would have been helpful if I had a pre-brief to get some explanation of the system and the terminology within the statement, but I also want to recognise that the equity of social workers and health professionals and their risk management teams will be working very hard to resolve this issue. It's not at all clear to me in the statement as to the real risk to communities from what seems to be quite a significant error, and that's only my sense having had first sight of the statement only an hour ago. I realise that social workers and multi-agency partners will be taking a holistic approach to all cases. Given that, can the cabinet secretary give an example of how it may be detrimental to offenders given that the statement in the statement says that the risk might be overstated, but more importantly, where it might put communities at risk, what is the cabinet secretary potentially concerned about here? The cabinet secretary said that there are 1,032 cases in total to be reviewed. I want that to be confirmed if I've understood that correctly. What type of resource will be needed to review what seems to be quite a high number of cases in a system that is so heavily relied on an IT model? I'll try to answer as many of the questions that I was able to take in there. On the first point that Pauline McNeill made, you're right that it's technical information and the statement does have lots of that information in there, including the figures that I mentioned. I think that she almost asked for a glossary of some of the terms and explanation of some of the terms. I should say that there is more information. It's easier to put more information into the letter that I've sent to the committee, but I'm more than happy—I'm sure that the committee will want to discuss this in future— more than happy to provide further explanation and further briefing on that if the member wishes us to do that. There is a great deal of work being done by the social workers. There is work being done by the review panel that I've set up, and that will involve a substantial amount of work for the people involved, and it will be work that's done as a priority. On the issue of the risk that she mentioned, I mentioned that the fact that it's in relation to the alcohol aggravator. Bear in mind, of course, the final judgment on that is a professional judgment of those involved in the system, but the risk scoring, which seems to be the issue in relation to that, was giving that too high a bearing. Sometimes, when alcohol was no longer deemed to be a risk factor, it may have been the case that it wasn't showing that reduction in risk there. That's one of the things that's currently being investigated. I would say that I'm happy to provide more information to the member either if he wants to write to me or, of course, both she and Mr Greene are on the committee, and the convener is here as well. I'm happy to provide information from that route and also to come back to Parliament with more information when we have it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary mentioned in a statement that, in the prison environment, the LSCMI is used as just one of a range of risk assessment tools. Can the cabinet secretary expand further on what other risk assessment processes are working alongside this system? The member is right to say that, as I mentioned, it's never just the LSCMI risk assessment that determines prison release, for example. The management of assessed risk in prison is governed by a multidisciplinary team of professionals referred to as the risk management team, the RMT, as I mentioned. That's chaired by a prison senior manager. It's supported by a range of professionals, including but not limited to criminal justice social work, psychologists, health professionals, Police Scotland, local authorities and third sector agencies. There are a range of other specialist risk assessment tools for sexual and violent offending that are also used often alongside LSCMI, so it is not, in the old phrase, the only tool of the box, and probably not even the most important one when you consider the professional judgment of the categories of professionals that you have just read out. Yet again, the SNP justice system fails law-abiding Scots. On the same day that this Parliament debates International Women's Day, we don't know how many women have been put at risk by this incompetence. Cabinet secretary, you have to approve first grant temporary release applications for murderers and rapists serving life sentences. I have a very specific question. Were any of your approvals among those botched cases, and if so, how many? I'm very confident that the answer, of course not to stand further what we have to do, will be one that would reassure the member, but perhaps rather than do that if I write to the member with the exact details of that, perhaps he'd be reassured. And honestly, to be honest, on something that's quite serious in relation to this, on which it is possible, of course, to raise public concerns to the outright political attack, we're just getting sick of the script. The SNP Government is the SNP Government that. Perhaps we should treat this issue as serious as it should be taken. This is a serious issue which can cause people concern. It deserves a serious discussion rather than the political rhetoric that we just had for Mr Finlay once again. Ronan Kaye, to be followed by Katie Clark. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary outline what lessons have already been learned and reiterate further detail about the next steps that the Scottish Government is taking to resolve this issue? Well, we have, I think, throughout all of this, sought to take a precautionary approach to ensure that all potential effective cases are reviewed and to revert temporarily to the LSEMI's paper-based system while we assess the impact and make any required changes to its IT function. Within that, the member will have picked up that, of course, we want to do that, first of all, with the open cases first, and then move on to previously closed cases. We're also asking the risk management authority to urgently convene the review group that you mentioned. That will draw in other justice partners as needed. The work of constituting that group began today. Once the immediate and on-going review of live cases is concluded, the review group will examine the overall impact of those two errors in the IT system and I will report back to Parliament at that stage, Parliament permitting, of course. I call Katie Clark, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Has the cabinet secretary been provided with a breakdown of the kind of offenses that those involved have been convicted of? For example, does he know how many sexual offenders are involved? Has he been advised of what the potential implications could be in those cases? It sounds as if this is going to be resource intensive at a time when the legal system is already under massive pressure. What information has he been provided about the lightly work involved by the various agencies? On the first point, it would not be possible to break it down as far as I am aware into those cases because, as I mentioned during the statement, there are a number of different tools used for different offenses and used often in conjunction with other tools, all of which are used in conjunction with professional judgment. However, I will look into that and see if there is more information that I can provide to the member in relation to that. And also to say that I think that the second part to the question was about the resources required and that are necessary to carry the set. That is the nature of the job that it will have to do. It is very important so that will begin right away. And it is in the nature of the work that is done, as the member knows very well, of just the social workers and those in the prison service. I should say that the paper system that is now going to be used versus the reviews undertaken is one that the members professionals will be familiar with, not least because some of the other systems they cannot use are still paper systems. And some of them, of course, will have had the paper system continuing previously to the system, the IT system being adopted. So it won't be something that's new to those members but I do recognise that it's going to take time for that to happen. And once again, it's another issue which in relation to the on-going, if you like, resource-intensive nature of it, I'm happy to report back to both the committee and Parliament. I call Wilson McGregor to be followed by Lee McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. And can I refer members to my register of interests? I was working in the sector when the LSCMI was introduced and recalled the fairly robust training programme that we had to undertake. The override option, as it's been in what's called, although with robust protocols, including several levels of management approval, and I hope that's reassuring to my Conservative colleagues, was nonetheless, always by far, the most contentious part of the LSCMI. And therefore, perhaps not surprising that this aspect is coming under more government scrutiny, though we surely should say that this is a good thing because it can help us to make it more effective and consistent. So, on behalf of my previous colleagues and those working across Scotland, can the cabinet secretary provide more detail about the support that is being provided to justice social workers as they move with immediate effect to working within a totally paper-based system? They will be helped I think by the review process itself. I think that in any event it's a good idea to have this review and also not to have accepted that the first instance which was picked up by somebody in the prison service perceived to be a glitch, wasn't written off in that way, it was then thoroughly checked to see if it was a wider issue, it was a wider issue, that was checked and then they looked for further issues and they found a second issue in relation to the system. As a member says, it is true, the system itself I think came in 2006 but it has moved to the IT-based side of things since 2012 and is now being centralised. I'm not aware yet, just to go back to the very first point that was made by Jamie Greene that is anything in the process to centralising that's caused any of these issues. In fact we know and listen to the two glitches or two technical problems which have emerged that that's not the case and it may be that the centralisation which is supported by all the different agencies is the means by which this has been found out but we will continue to provide as the member asks support to all the professionals involved and this will recognise both his point and the point of Katie Clark this has provided additional work to obviously a pressured area of work within government it will make sure that the resources are made available to ensure that they can get through this without affecting the other work they are currently having to face. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Collette Stevenson. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement but echo the concerns of Pauli McNeill in terms of some of the technical language that was used but it's clear that a key component for assessing the risk of convicted people which feeds into how the justice system deals with them has been displaying information wrongly potentially for years and potentially impacting decisions around release around sentencing and who should be subject to a map of monitoring of sexual offenders. So can the cabinet secretary confirm whether not just in case of alcohol and drugs cases whether generally the IT system has been overstating or understating the risk and when does he expect the urgent review now on their way of the remaining cases will be complete? On the first point made by them but no I can't say that because the information we've put back of the 150 and 150 was first in this morning it will be a higher number now that's the pace at which this has been worked through has not yet thrown up any public protection issues which at least in relation to the idea of overstating or wrongly stating does not yet concern the professionals involved in this so I can't say it maybe that I can say more on that as we get more information coming back I mean go through the rest of the functions and I apologize I forget the second part of the question that the member asked but I think we should be looking to I've mentioned the means by which we would try to push through this review I think we'll have more information certainly so significantly more information in the next fortnight I wouldn't want to commit to when the whole review should finish because we really have to know that we have a complete check as well as finding out these issues these concerns we want to make sure the entire system's working so I couldn't give them that assurance just now but I think on the the major issues many of which we've raised by members today I think we should have much more clarity within a fortnight thank you I have three more questioners seeking to ask questions so could I ask please for succinct questions and succinct answers collect Stevenson to be followed by Maggie Chapman thank you Presiding Officer Will the cabinet secretary provide a commitment that the Scottish Government will continue to keep both Parliament and the criminal justice committee updated as this situation develops and outline how he will do so thank you cabinet secretary yes as I said I'm happy to do that I should say I think I'm due to appear before the committee for about two and a half hours next week on different issues so but it's up to the committee what question I apologize I didn't hear that but I'm happy to answer any questions which are asked and also if the committee because of this wants to change the nature of the questions and of course I'll be responsive and the government will be responsive to that and I've already committed to coming back to Parliament it is a judgment to be made and it's one which obviously you cannot win on as to when to come back at the appropriate time I want to make sure Parliament is informed as soon as possible that's been the injunction we've had from the Presiding Officer which I've sought to do this is six days since we were made aware of this issue and much work has been done to make sure we can get as much information as possible to members but as we have more information to provide to members of course I'll come back to both the committee and the Parliament and in relation to Parliament Neil's questions I'm happy to correspond obviously with individual members during that time as well I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement and for his stated intentions to keep Parliament informed and be as transparent as possible which I take in good faith while there is clearly a place for risk assessment systems such as the LSEMI and others does this issue underline the case that both victim survivors and people convicted of crime are first and foremost people with individual needs and therefore it highlights the importance of having sufficient capacity and resources to treat individuals with respect and care can you outline what additional support he's putting in to ensure that is the case cabinet secretary Well I've mentioned in relation to the specific issues which you face the additional resources in terms of the review group and a willingness in the part of government to make sure that we put in additional resources to help the professionals involved in this exercise I think the members questions a wider one though about resources more generally and I think she will get a clue from the justice vision which we recently produced as to how we intend to use best the resources that we have I should say those she mentions victims and I should say that I've mentioned in the statement I will contact and have contacted I think by now victims organisations and we will also involve them in this process through the risk review group membership of that should they wish to take up that issue we'll do that through the victims organisations rather than the victims directly for reasons which I'm sure the members very well aware of and Stephen Kerr Thank you I was a little surprised with the response that the cabinet secretary gave to my colleague Russell Finlay because this cabinet secretary is a very experienced minister and he knows coming to this place means he will be scrutinised by members on all sides so can I ask him in respect to this catastrophic failure can he be very clear as of the moment he entered the chamber how many offenders that have been released possibly wrongly have been are still out on the streets as it were unchecked now the cabinet secretary says the problem was first identified by a user in january but it took until last week for the government to realise it it affected hundreds of cases so can I ask him when did he first become aware when was he first made aware of the scale of the problem and then if I might also ask him why did it take from some time last week until today to come to parliament I welcome that by the way and it makes a change Mr Kerr he came to parliament and to Mr Kerr could we please finish the question because we're running out of time as I've already indicated you've had quite a long run in could you please conclude your question Mr Kerr I'm trying to finish my question but it doesn't help when the depth please just conclude your question my question well I've asked my question great cabinet secretary when was he first made aware and why did it take him from last week until today to come to parliament if I can pick out the questions and you know the member makes a fair point about my response to a previous member if it comes with all sorts of political rhetoric behind it I'm going to respond to that I'm happy to respond to the factual points it's a serious issue and that's what I'm trying to do just to say the first to go directly to the member's question on 24th of January a member of the Scottish Prison Service using the system found an issue with that what they did they had this contact the help desk for those that are there to support it and they wondered at the start of course there was there to make certain it wasn't an individual user issue and that took time to do that they had they ran tests in parallel with the system that took them till the 23rd of February we the government were advised there is a wider issue with the system on Friday Friday afternoon last week that's when we were told and during the course of the weekend work has been going on non-stop to try and get both resolved to the system the worker in the paper based system and also to get more information so that I could make that statement to Parliament as full as possible on the other question that the member asked and I think that is pretty quick and I think it's the right way to have done things of course it's not going to criticism but I think that was the right way to do it on the issue about how many people are released that shouldn't be released I've tried to answer that already by saying to the members that have asked that question there are over 150 different cases at the 265 that have to be looked at in relation to the open cases which have come back with no public protection issues whatsoever that number may be higher because it was from this morning and of course I will update on that number if there's any change to that to members through the processes which I've already mentioned thank you cabinet secretary and that concludes the ministerial statement it is now time to move on to the next item of business and before doing so I remind members of the Covid related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus