Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak in this debate as convener of the Criminal Justice Committee. I preface my remarks by saying that they come from my own perspective, while drawing on the work of that committee.

I pay tribute to the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee for its detailed scrutiny, which was a really important and worthwhile piece of work. I also pay tribute to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its diligent work on this area. I gave evidence to that committee during its review of the supported bodies landscape.

It is right that we review not only the number of commissioners but other important factors such as cost, functions, shared services, governance and effectiveness. I note that the review committee’s report outlines the anticipated drivers that have led to the proliferation of supported bodies in place today. I agree with the direction of travel in relation to new commissioners and with the recommendation that a strategic mapping exercise should be undertaken to look at functions, areas of overlap and what the supported bodies landscape should look like in future.

That said, I consider Parliament’s decision yesterday to create a new victims and witnesses commissioner to be the right one. When the Criminal Justice Committee considered that part of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, we heard concerns that the cost of a new commissioner could be put to better use elsewhere and questions about whether an existing commissioner might be able to take on the role. One witness told us that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.

We considered whether a commissioner would interfere with the ability of third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies where strong relationships already exist. However, on balance, we supported the establishment of a commissioner, while caveating that with the recommendation that the post should be time limited, to allow for its effectiveness to be reviewed.

I also point out that, at the time of our scrutiny and while we were considering our proposal, the Criminal Justice Committee was unaware of the ministerial control framework, which I do not think has yet been mentioned today. It would have been helpful to understand that framework when we were scrutinising the case for having a new commissioner. In short, we wanted to see clear evidence of the existence of a commissioner noticeably improving the experiences of victims and witnesses, which is why we requested a review.

The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner promotes the ethical and lawful use of biometric data in policing and criminal justice in Scotland, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates incidents involving public bodies in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of both offices, which undertake highly specialist but different functions in the justice space. In relation to the recommendation that a two-tier approach be adopted to the establishment of new commissioners, I have no doubt whatsoever that both those offices would pass the test, so to speak. I welcome that recommendation, and I note the committee’s view that standardising functions would risk constraining the flexibility that commissioners need.

Turning to the issue of governance, which was an area of particular focus in the review, I think that we are all agreed that there is significant room for—and, indeed, a need for—far more proactive scrutiny. I acknowledge and agree with the view expressed by the Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, when he told the review committee—in the words of the report—that

“it would be unrealistic to expect committees to respond to every report laid before Parliament.”

He suggested that a structured approach, whereby each relevant committee would hold a dedicated session once a year, for example, might strike a more manageable balance.

I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s findings and recommendations regarding the wider public bodies. In the case of the justice sector, there might be scope to extend the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny to other bodies, such as the inspectorates of prisons, policing and prosecution.

Finally, I agree with the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s recommendation that

“a new governance structure be introduced on a time-limited basis”

in the next parliamentary session.

I thank my colleague Ben Macpherson for leading the committee’s important review, and I look forward to following it in delivering positive change across our supported bodies landscape.

I wonder whether I can just come in with a question. Linda Pollock talked about the importance of relationships, and the critical role of the relationship between a prisoner and a prison officer or a member of staff has come up throughout the inquiry. However, we have heard in evidence about the disruptive nature of prison transfers. We understand the reasons for transfers, but they can have unintended consequences and the potential to disrupt relationships that are working well. Is that something that you are aware of? Are there ways in which transfers can be kept to a minimum and the benefit of relationships can be considered when a transfer is being proposed?

We understand the geographical model of the prison estate, and the fact that people from the north-east will end up in HMP Grampian, for example. We heard a counterargument from some prisoners about the benefit of being accommodated in a prison that is outwith their home area. That is perhaps to do with family complexities, family breakdown and some of the dynamics that can be difficult for a prisoner. It is interesting to hear that that can be considered in the transfer policy.

A very good morning and welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2025 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning. Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

Our first item of business is the continuation of our inquiry into the harm caused by substance use in Scottish prisons. Today, we will take evidence from the main public bodies responsible for such matters, and I am pleased to welcome our witnesses. Leona Paget is prison healthcare lead, Falkirk health and social care partnership; Rhoda MacLeod is head of adult services, Glasgow city health and social care partnership; Linda Pollock is deputy chief executive, Scottish Prison Service; Sarah Angus is director of policy at the SPS; and Suzy Calder is head of health and wellbeing at the SPS.

I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I intend to allow up to two hours for this evidence session.

I will begin with an open question, starting with Leona Paget on my left and working my way across the panel. We have heard evidence that strategies do not always translate into a change in practice and that there are often issues with implementation. Can you set out how you intend to ensure that the necessary strategies are implemented? Indeed, is implementation possible, given the current prison population levels?

Thank you. Katy Clark, are you interested in coming in?

I have a couple of quick follow-up questions for Rhoda MacLeod and Linda Pollock.

Rhoda said that it is not always the case that what is happening in communities is replicated in prisons. We have heard that throughout our inquiry.

We talk about the public health approach that we are seeking to take to tackle substance use in Scotland. We want to make our strategies and policies fit with a public health approach that meets the needs of people who are impacted by substance use, but is that really being delivered in prisons? That may be a question for Linda, but I am interested in hearing from Rhoda because she brought up that issue.

Rhoda MacLeod wants to come in on that.

It is helpful to understand that. There might be a delay, but it is not insurmountable, if you like.

I want to finish up with a couple of questions, and the first comes back to the focused day model. When we kicked off our meeting, Linda Pollock outlined where the focused day was going. To be a bit daft lassie, could you explain the terminology around regime and roster operational review? For the clarity of members, what does that mean?

Will that still mean that there is a likelihood that prisoners will be locked up for longer? Even though you are looking at how you can maximise the effectiveness of your staff deployment, is there still a risk that, inevitably, people will be locked up for longer than you would want?

I have a final question about the MAT standards before I bring in Rona Mackay. Rhoda, the alcohol and drug recovery strategy rightly states that the implementation of MAT standards in prisons is a priority, with the aim, as I understand it, that that will be completed by April next year. We have heard evidence that that is quite an ambitious target, so I am interested in your view on whether that is realistic.