Chamber and committees

::Will the member take an intervention?

::I am very proud to open the debate on the Criminal Justice Committee’s report into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scotland’s prisons. I thank our excellent clerking team, particularly Lucy Miller, and Scottish Parliament information centre and participation and communities team colleagues for their support during the inquiry.

The inquiry began with accumulation: rising drug-related deaths in custody, escalating use of synthetic substances, repeated warnings from oversight bodies and persistent concern from families and staff that the system is not reducing harm in the way that it should. Over months of evidence taking, prison visits and private engagement sessions, we examined what drives substance use in custody, how effectively it is prevented and treated, and what must change.

The first and most consistent message that we heard was that substance misuse in prisons cannot be understood in isolation from the wider public health challenges in Scotland. The report sets out clearly that people who enter custody are disproportionately affected by poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, unstable housing and poor physical and mental health. Prison does not create those inequalities, but the evidence suggests that it can intensify them.

We heard about the changing nature of drug supply: synthetic cannabinoids, which now dominate seized samples, increasingly potent substances arriving via drones and contaminated items, and the constant adaptation of organised crime networks. We heard that drug-trend testing shows high levels of drug positivity on admission, meaning that many people who arrive in custody are already living with addiction.

Witnesses repeatedly told us that boredom, long hours locked in cells, inconsistent access to purposeful activity and gaps in mental health provision all drive substance use in prison. Where distress is unaddressed, substances can fill the void.

We were struck, in particular, by the evidence around dual diagnoses. Mental ill health and substance dependency are frequently intertwined, yet services are not always integrated in practice.

We also heard directly from people who have experienced addiction in custody. They spoke about withdrawal following arrival, self-medicating anxiety and the difference that it makes when a member of staff treats them as a person rather than a problem. Those contributions were among the most powerful evidence that we received. They shaped our recommendations on trauma-informed care, recovery-focused regimes and continuity of supply on release. I put on record my personal thanks to all those who spoke to us.

Evidence shows that 63 per cent of people in prison have an alcohol use disorder and that 40 per cent report being drunk at the time of their offence. However, specialist alcohol referrals remain strikingly low in comparison to need. Alcohol may be less visible in custody than synthetic drugs, but its role in offending, harm and post-release mortality is significant.

We recognise the exceptional strain on the prison estate. Overcrowding, high turnover and workforce pressures were repeatedly cited as barriers to effective prevention and early intervention. Without protected time for purposeful activity, therapeutic work and consistent staff engagement, progress will always be fragile.

I welcome the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service’s joint initial assessment of our recommendations and the commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to continued engagement on the issue. The response highlights important work that is under way, such as the target operating model for prison healthcare, the alignment of the SPS alcohol and drug recovery strategy with the mental health strategy, the implementation of medication assisted treatment standards, recovery cafes, the operational regime and roster review, and action to manage population pressures—all of which is extremely important work.

Those are significant steps, but our inquiry requires us to ask whether the frameworks that exist are delivering consistently across the estate. For example, the Government’s response emphasises that prison healthcare “must be equivalent to” community standards, yet witnesses described variability between health boards in staffing levels, access to therapies and clinical capacity.

On early intervention, the Government notes alignment between strategies. However, our report recommends a custody-focused prevention and early intervention framework that explicitly integrates mental health and substance use services from admission right through to release. Integration is essential.

On accountability, the Government indicates that existing reporting structures will provide updates. The committee’s position is that the Parliament must be able to track measurable outcomes, reductions in drug-related deaths, improved access to treatment and increased engagement in recovery work.

One of the strongest areas of consensus during the inquiry was that substance misuse in prisons is fundamentally a public health issue with criminal justice consequences. If we treat it as a security problem, we will chase supply endlessly. If we treat it as an individual failing, we will ignore structural drivers. However, if we treat it as a health issue that is embedded in a justice context, we have a chance to reduce harm meaningfully.

The committee’s report contains 50 practical, evidence based and cross-party recommendations across six themes. They acknowledge the dedication of staff and recognise financial and operational constraints while being clear that incremental change will not be enough.

Today’s debate is not just about highlighting gaps and shortcomings but about ensuring that custody does not deepen addiction and that release does not mark the beginning of a renewed crisis. The measure of our justice system is not only how securely it confines people but whether it reduces harm, improves health and strengthens community safety in the long term. That is the standard that the committee’s report sets, and I commend it to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Criminal Justice Committee’s 1st Report, 2026 (Session 6), Inquiry into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scottish Prisons (SP Paper 956).

15:54

::The point about purposeful activity has been raised by, probably, all speakers in the debate. Over the years, I have had the privilege of visiting HMP Grampian fairly regularly, and it provides some absolutely wonderful purposeful activity. One of the issues and challenges that it faces is access to third sector funding, given that many of the organisations that are involved are external organisations that come in. I put on the record that it is not just the issues around overcrowding and suchlike that are a challenge around purposeful activity.

::Will the member take an intervention?

::I am very proud to open the debate on the Criminal Justice Committee’s report into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scotland’s prisons. I thank our excellent clerking team, particularly Lucy Miller, and Scottish Parliament information centre and participation and communities team colleagues for their support during the inquiry.

The inquiry began with accumulation: rising drug-related deaths in custody, escalating use of synthetic substances, repeated warnings from oversight bodies and persistent concern from families and staff that the system is not reducing harm in the way that it should. Over months of evidence taking, prison visits and private engagement sessions, we examined what drives substance use in custody, how effectively it is prevented and treated, and what must change.

The first and most consistent message that we heard was that substance misuse in prisons cannot be understood in isolation from the wider public health challenges in Scotland. The report sets out clearly that people who enter custody are disproportionately affected by poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, unstable housing and poor physical and mental health. Prison does not create those inequalities, but the evidence suggests that it can intensify them.

We heard about the changing nature of drug supply: synthetic cannabinoids, which now dominate seized samples, increasingly potent substances arriving via drones and contaminated items, and the constant adaptation of organised crime networks. We heard that drug-trend testing shows high levels of drug positivity on admission, meaning that many people who arrive in custody are already living with addiction.

Witnesses repeatedly told us that boredom, long hours locked in cells, inconsistent access to purposeful activity and gaps in mental health provision all drive substance use in prison. Where distress is unaddressed, substances can fill the void.

We were struck, in particular, by the evidence around dual diagnoses. Mental ill health and substance dependency are frequently intertwined, yet services are not always integrated in practice.

We also heard directly from people who have experienced addiction in custody. They spoke about withdrawal following arrival, self-medicating anxiety and the difference that it makes when a member of staff treats them as a person rather than a problem. Those contributions were among the most powerful evidence that we received. They shaped our recommendations on trauma-informed care, recovery-focused regimes and continuity of supply on release. I put on record my personal thanks to all those who spoke to us.

Evidence shows that 63 per cent of people in prison have an alcohol use disorder and that 40 per cent report being drunk at the time of their offence. However, specialist alcohol referrals remain strikingly low in comparison to need. Alcohol may be less visible in custody than synthetic drugs, but its role in offending, harm and post-release mortality is significant.

We recognise the exceptional strain on the prison estate. Overcrowding, high turnover and workforce pressures were repeatedly cited as barriers to effective prevention and early intervention. Without protected time for purposeful activity, therapeutic work and consistent staff engagement, progress will always be fragile.

I welcome the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service’s joint initial assessment of our recommendations and the commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to continued engagement on the issue. The response highlights important work that is under way, such as the target operating model for prison healthcare, the alignment of the SPS alcohol and drug recovery strategy with the mental health strategy, the implementation of medication assisted treatment standards, recovery cafes, the operational regime and roster review, and action to manage population pressures—all of which is extremely important work.

Those are significant steps, but our inquiry requires us to ask whether the frameworks that exist are delivering consistently across the estate. For example, the Government’s response emphasises that prison healthcare “must be equivalent to” community standards, yet witnesses described variability between health boards in staffing levels, access to therapies and clinical capacity.

On early intervention, the Government notes alignment between strategies. However, our report recommends a custody-focused prevention and early intervention framework that explicitly integrates mental health and substance use services from admission right through to release. Integration is essential.

On accountability, the Government indicates that existing reporting structures will provide updates. The committee’s position is that the Parliament must be able to track measurable outcomes, reductions in drug-related deaths, improved access to treatment and increased engagement in recovery work.

One of the strongest areas of consensus during the inquiry was that substance misuse in prisons is fundamentally a public health issue with criminal justice consequences. If we treat it as a security problem, we will chase supply endlessly. If we treat it as an individual failing, we will ignore structural drivers. However, if we treat it as a health issue that is embedded in a justice context, we have a chance to reduce harm meaningfully.

The committee’s report contains 50 practical, evidence based and cross-party recommendations across six themes. They acknowledge the dedication of staff and recognise financial and operational constraints while being clear that incremental change will not be enough.

Today’s debate is not just about highlighting gaps and shortcomings but about ensuring that custody does not deepen addiction and that release does not mark the beginning of a renewed crisis. The measure of our justice system is not only how securely it confines people but whether it reduces harm, improves health and strengthens community safety in the long term. That is the standard that the committee’s report sets, and I commend it to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Criminal Justice Committee’s 1st Report, 2026 (Session 6), Inquiry into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scottish Prisons (SP Paper 956).

15:54

::The point about purposeful activity has been raised by, probably, all speakers in the debate. Over the years, I have had the privilege of visiting HMP Grampian fairly regularly, and it provides some absolutely wonderful purposeful activity. One of the issues and challenges that it faces is access to third sector funding, given that many of the organisations that are involved are external organisations that come in. I put on the record that it is not just the issues around overcrowding and suchlike that are a challenge around purposeful activity.

::The specialist investigatory and intelligence role of Police Scotland is crucial to bringing perpetrators to account. Can the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that the officers who are conducting the review have the necessary experience, training and resources to undertake this highly complex and specialist piece of work?

::Many charities that are facing rising costs and falling donations need much more security and stability to enable them to plan and develop. I welcome the introduction of the new fairer funding pilot, which will provide additional multiyear funding in the form of 45 grants to organisations in Scotland. That is an important first step in more widely mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements across the third sector. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how that funding will support organisations, particularly in planning for the future and making the most of their resources?

Thank you for that helpful clarification. That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you both very much indeed—it has been a very worthwhile session.

We will have a short suspension to allow our witnesses to change over.

11:07

Meeting suspended.

11:12

On resuming—

Thank you for your opening remarks. I know that members are keen to drill into some of the points that you have raised in your opening statement, but I will kick things off by referring to your submission, which helpfully flags not only the fact that an internal review is taking place on reform of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and its delivery, and the impact of the budget in that respect, but the implications of the public service reform strategy. There is quite a lot going on that you, as a union, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are having to grapple with.

Bearing all that context in mind, and given what you have just outlined, what do you want to see—or what would you like to see—in the next year or the next three years that would change the position that you are in? What do you need? You have talked about where we are with regard to the budget, but how will that need to change to bring things up to an acceptable and sustainable level?