Chamber and committees

Thank you. I will start off, and I will stick with the minister. It was helpful to hear your update on the specific matter of healthcare in prisons. As you will imagine, we have taken quite a bit of evidence on the healthcare support that is available in prisons.

Of course there are challenges with that at the moment, not least by virtue of the size of the prison population. NHS and health and care partnership representatives have told us that prison healthcare can often be limited by operational constraints. In his evidence, Dr Craig Sayers from NHS Forth Valley noted that, although he is present from 8 am to 5 pm on weekdays, he can see prisoners only during relatively short windows, because of officer availability and the natural constraints that can emerge in the prison estate. However, he also told us that, in some prisons, there seems to be more flexible access, which he believes we should look to make more standard. That would allow NHS staff to see more patients and to provide better care.

Would you care to respond to that? What commitment can the Scottish Government give to engaging with the SPS and NHS Scotland on how a more effective model that builds on the important service that is there already could be embedded in prisons?

By way of a follow-up, it is very helpful to understand a bit about the target operating model, because I do not think that that has been raised in evidence so far. It is good to understand that that approach is being used in order to promote service delivery. I do not want to complicate things, but how does that tie in with the MAT standards and how they are being rolled out across the prison estate?

Thank you for that offer. That would be really helpful, just so that we can get our heads around how everything intersects.

I will bring in Liam Kerr.

Is there any idea of a timescale for that? A timely resolution would be good.

There is an issue around transfer between prisons, which does not just apply to the remand population. The committee has heard about the impact of what are often last-minute transfers of individuals. That can happen for all sorts of different reasons, but what came across, in particular, was the disruptive impact that a transfer can have on somebody who uses substances but who is stable, for instance. They might have become quite stable and settled, but then, for no reason that they are aware of, they are transferred. I know that that is an operational requirement at the moment. Do you have any comment on any options to reduce or address that in the context of what we are discussing today?

The point that you made about clinical IT systems and clinical information has certainly come up with regard to having timely access to clinical information when a transfer is taking place. Thank you for that point.

Thank you. I will open it up to questions from other members.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

The Scottish economy is currently part of a UK economic model that is less productive, with lower national income per head and greater inequality than independent countries that are comparable to Scotland. The UK’s relatively poor economic performance was evident before Brexit, which has made our economic prospects even worse. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how making decisions in Scotland, combined with our economic strengths, will lead to better outcomes?

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.