Chamber and committees

For our next panel of witnesses, we are joined by representatives of the Scottish Prison Service. I extend a warm welcome to Teresa Medhurst, chief executive; Linda Pollock, deputy chief executive; and Gerry O’Donnell, director of finance. I intend to allow about 75 minutes for the session. I ask for concise questions and responses, and for brevity, as there is a lot to get through and a lot that we are interested in.

In addition to papers 1 and 2, which members already have, I refer members to the written submission from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, which was circulated separately and is relevant to our questions.

I will kick things off with general opening questions for Teresa Medhurst. In your view, what are the main financial challenges that are facing the Scottish Prison Service? What advice has the SPS given to the Scottish Government on the budget resources that are needed for prisons in 2025-26?

I have a couple of questions that I am interested in picking up on from the submission from HMIPS. Theresa Medhurst touched on Castle Huntly prison in earlier evidence. I note that, in the recently published thematic review on progression, there was a reference to significant improvements being required in individualised case management, and in training and development of staff, if people in prison are to progress to less secure conditions—such as in Castle Huntly—in preparation for release, thereby optimising the benefits of the underused capacity. Are there specific blockages or challenges—for example, around staff training and development—that are adding to that and which, from a budgetary point of view, are of interest to the committee?

Agenda item 2 is pre-budget scrutiny. Our focus today is on the courts, the prosecution service and prisons. We have two panels of witnesses this morning. Our first panel consists of representatives of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I am pleased that we are joined by Malcolm Graham, the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service—welcome to your new role—and John Logue, the Crown Agent at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I offer you both a very warm welcome.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I also refer members to the FDA union’s written submission, which was circulated separately and is relevant to our questioning of Mr Logue. We thank the FDA union for its submission.

I intend to allow about 75 minutes for this session. I will begin by asking the witnesses an opening general question to set the scene, after which we will move on to other members’ questions.

What do you see as being the main financial challenges that your organisation faces, and what is the latest position on any discussions that you have had with the Scottish Government on your budget for 2025-26?

I should say that we still have three members seeking to come in, and there will probably be a couple of supplementary questions, so I will just stop you there, Mr Graham.

Liam Kerr has a supplementary question.

I, too, commend Fulton MacGregor and congratulate him on bringing the debate and on his commitment to what is a complex, difficult and—often—hidden issue. I also commend the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse for its broader work and for putting the report together.

As other members have referenced, the motion sets out a significant amount of detail and lays bare the extent to which sibling sexual abuse is believed to be underreported in Scotland and the challenges that survivors continue to face in their experience being minimised, not believed, or seen in the context of curiosity or experimentation. The paper that the cross-party group produced recognises and sets out the significant and lasting impact of sibling sexual abuse—the shame, the fear of blame and not being believed—and the physical impacts on survivors, including depression, substance abuse and relationship difficulties, which can be enduring and can last well into adulthood.

I am pleased that the motion makes reference to the complexities of how to respond to sibling sexual abuse. As others have spoken about, it outlines some of the ideas and views on how to respond and how to draw further focus on the issue, bringing together stakeholders, good practice and those with lived experience.

It is worth noting that this debate follows immediately on the debate that the minister led about the Promise, which seeks to create a care system that places love and relationships at the centre for every child and family who need support. I have no doubt of the commitment across Scotland to giving children the best start in life.

In the short time that is left, I will reflect a little on my experience of working in policing, on the progress that has been made over the years on the investigation of childhood sexual abuse more broadly and on the emerging challenges that make tackling the issue even more challenging.

Many members know about my background. It is safe to say that a good part of my service was immersed in complex public protection investigations into child sexual abuse, domestic abuse and, latterly, adult harm. I also spent many years in the development of policy and practice in that space. In 2024, we have moved to a point at which there is a plethora of guidance, legislation and organisations that aim to support the response to sexual harm, including that which is perpetrated on siblings. That is to be commended and recognised. I am pleased that, within that, there is focused guidance and material that is relevant to sibling sexual abuse, which I hope will underpin the response, particularly at a local level, when a disclosure is made. On a point that Monica Lennon made, training is absolutely at the centre of how robust and effective that response has to be.

The cross-party group’s report makes reference to the need for better care pathways for survivors and for joined-up policies. I completely agree with that. In my experience, that is key, but it can take time for organisations to come together and agree roles and responsibilities, information-sharing protocols and so on. Earlier today, in the Criminal Justice Committee, we spoke about the challenges that are faced by individual organisations that work within a whole system such as justice. That brings me to my second point, which is about trusted professional relationships absolutely underpinning work on tackling public protection and, closer to home in the debate, sibling sexual abuse.

I am conscious of time, so I will finish on a couple of points.

Members will be familiar with the bairns’ hoose, which involves a child-centred, trauma-informed approach to enable children to give their best evidence, where that is necessary, in a single space that brings together police, health and recovery services.

Finally, I want to raise concerns about the escalating incidence of online child sexual abuse, which we need to monitor, specifically with regard to sibling sexual abuse.

I again commend my colleague Fulton MacGregor and the cross-party group.

I note the cabinet secretary’s confirmation that the pay claims continue to be progressed through the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland. Will she further explain the two separate processes for police pay and say whether any pay offer will be backdated?

On the point about skills, one thing that slightly concerns me is how MSPs robustly scrutinise commissioners. Is there something in and around supporting MSPs, given their very important role in scrutinising commissioners, as has been reflected on today?

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for producing its detailed report on the commissioner landscape, which drills into a range of issues and makes timely recommendations. As the committee’s motion states, it calls for

“a ‘root and branch’ review”

and the establishment of

“a clear strategic framework to underpin ... the ... landscape”.

In my short speech, I will first reflect on some of the points that are outlined in the report by referring to the evidence that has been taken on a proposal for a new commissioner, and secondly draw on the evidence that has been given by an existing commissioner.

I was particularly interested in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s consideration of how commissioners fit within existing democratic accountability structures, which has been referenced in this debate. That is particularly relevant given the increase in the number of new commissioners who are being proposed. They include a victims commissioner, as we have heard. I was pleased to give evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny of that proposal and the challenges that were faced by that committee, which I convene, in making sense of the evidence and reaching agreement on recommendations.

At the time of the Criminal Justice Committee’s scrutiny, members were unaware of the existence of the ministerial control framework, which might have been of assistance to members. I am still slightly unclear on how the published framework should be applied, especially at the committee stage of scrutiny of a proposal for a new commissioner. I note for the record that my comments today reflect a personal viewpoint.

The proposal for a victims commissioner arises from a perceived need for an independent voice to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Support for the proposal varied. There was a strong sense that, for victims, the status quo is not acceptable and that a commissioner would play an important role in changing that. It was no surprise that cost was raised as an issue, with the suggestion that the funding that would be required could be put to better use. A witness stated that they would rather fund legal representation for survivors than a commissioner.

There was an expectation, and perhaps some confusion, among some witnesses that the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not the case, but the proposal highlighted the need for clarity on the individual roles and responsibilities of commissioners. Would a commissioner interfere with the ability of experienced third sector organisations to engage directly with the Scottish Government and other justice bodies, where strong relationships already exist? Scotland is considered to be leading in that regard. Similarly, would there be a synergy between a commissioner for victims and the likes of His Majesty’s inspectorates for policing and prosecutions, or the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner?

The issue of overlap was also raised—it has already been spoken about in the debate—for example, in relation to the existing role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland in representing the rights of children as victims. I hope that it is of some interest to Jeremy Balfour that, on the basis of the evidence heard, the Criminal Justice Committee remains to be convinced of a strong case for a victims commissioner. It recommended that, if a commissioner post is established, it should be for a time-limited period to allow for an assessment of the value of the role.

I also note the minister’s response to Martin Whitfield’s intervention seeking clarity on the status of commissioners’ posts that are currently the subject of live scrutiny, which was very helpful.

By contrast, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whose role is scrutinised by the Criminal Justice Committee, fulfils a fairly clear function of supporting lawful practices relating to biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA. I note the excellent evidence of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Brian Plastow, who described the model of commissioners in Scotland as having “evolved organically” over time—in his case, following controversies over what was described at the time as a “biometric wild west”. He stressed the importance of commissioners’ independence, sharing services to ensure best value and avoiding scrutiny purely through the lens of cost, which are points that have all been referenced this afternoon. I do not disagree with Dr Plastow's view that the scrutiny role of the SPCB, Parliament and committees is a bit of a mixed picture at the moment, with scope for it, especially the role of committees, to be far more proactive.

I was particularly interested to note Dr Plastow’s evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee regarding post-implementation review. He said:

“Often, these posts arise because of a particular wicked issue—a controversy ... but, 20 years down the line, that might no longer be relevant, so I think that there needs to be a more systematic look at how this entire landscape fits together.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 30 April 2024; c 17.]

I note the committee’s consideration of the merits of a sunset clause in enabling legislation.

My final point relates to the need to ensure that elected members fully understand their role in scrutinising the role and function of commissioners and holding them to account—a point on which I intervened on my colleague Michelle Thomson—in particular when a commissioner’s role is specialist or technical.

I commend the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its work, and I very much look forward to following the progress of the review, should it be agreed to today.

I am very pleased to bring the debate to the chamber. I thank every member who signed the motion, and every member who is speaking today.

The motion centres on the recent Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”, which takes account of the current status of non-native species in Scotland, the part that they play in biodiversity loss and the urgent action that is required to tackle them. I commend all the organisations that contributed to the report, and I thank the report’s authors for producing a comprehensive review of the non-native species landscape in Scotland. I also thank all the organisations that have shared helpful briefings ahead of the debate, and I extend special thanks to Andrew Marks, Susan Madden, Dr Lorraine Hawkins and Jan Simpson for their insight and support.

As nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I am pleased to have secured the time to debate this topic. The urgency of the work that is required to shift the dial on habitat and species decline, including tackling invasive non-native species, cannot be overstated.

Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, pollution, changes in land use, natural resource use and exploitation. Globally, natural barriers such as oceans and mountains restrict the mixing of species from different regions and allow global diversity to be maintained. INNS are species that have been introduced to a country, whether deliberately or accidentally, thereby breaking down those barriers and eroding biodiversity. International trade and the movement of people and goods are the most likely means by which INNS move across borders.

Not all INNS have immediate or detectable environmental impacts, but many of them do. There is no doubt that the pressure of INNS on biodiversity is intensifying across terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Many of us are familiar with Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, but there are many other INNS that cause issues, including the grey squirrel, American skunk cabbage and American mink, to name but a few.

The greatest threat to Scotland’s rainforest is the rhododendron, with which we are all familiar. It blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor, stifling the growth of native flora and fauna, which in turn impacts mammals, insects, moss and lichen. In the north-east, the Dee Catchment Partnership has undertaken a number of targeted projects, including in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, to control giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and piri piri burr.

Japanese knotweed is highly invasive in woodlands and on riverbanks, forming very dense clumps that overshadow native plants. Dispersal is particularly problematic for riverbanks because fragments of root wash downstream, only to spread further.

As well as the environmental cost of INNS, their economic cost is significant. The cost of INNS to the UK economy is estimated to be almost £500 million per year. The cost over the past 40 to 50 years is estimated to be more than £5 billion, which is one of the highest totals in Europe.

How effectively are we controlling INNS? The Scottish biodiversity strategy notes the spread of 190 INNS across Great Britain during the past six decades, with an estimated 10 to 12 new non-native species establishing themselves each year. Projects such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels and the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest are working successfully to tackle INNS in Scotland. However, efforts to control and eradicate non-native species have been patchy, and work to control the spread has been largely inadequate. The existing Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy is not considered to take full account of the unique and, in part, vulnerable Scottish ecosystem.

However, the forthcoming Scottish INNS plan, which was signalled in the draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, presents the Scottish Government with an opportunity to make key strides in the control and eradication of INNS. Scotland could look to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework for guidance when considering the forthcoming plan. The KMGB framework sets a target to reduce rates of introduction and establishment of INNS by at least 50 per cent by 2030, and it puts forward targets for significant progress on the eradication or control of INNS, particularly at priority sites that are susceptible to them.

On funding, financial support to date has derived from a wide range of sources including the Scottish Government nature restoration fund. It is disappointing that the Government has signalled that that fund is to be withdrawn. I hope that the recent United Kingdom budget affords some flexibility for that to be reconsidered, and I ask the minister to provide some clarity on that point in his response to the debate.

Looking ahead, I trust that the Scottish Government will engage closely with environmental non-governmental organisations to create a Scottish INNS plan that is both clear and comprehensive in addressing the impact of INNS on the ecosystem as well as on Scotland’s native species.

Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems play a key role in tackling climate change, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber to highlight the threat that INNS represent to Scotland’s biodiversity. I thank everyone who supported my motion and I look forward to listening to members’ contributions.