Chamber and committees

The information before me might not relate exactly to the question, but we will see how we get on.

We are very interested in further amendments that we anticipate the UK Government lodging around child sexual abuse and exploitation online, specifically concerning what are euphemistically called child sexual abuse manuals. There will be new offences on the possession of materials that contain advice, guidance or content on how to groom, otherwise known as “paedophile manuals”—forgive me for using that term. The volume of indecent images of children is also an issue that we will be considering with interest.

Further possible amendments might be lodged as a result of the pornography review by Baroness Gabby Bertin, which would be around the possession and publication of depictions of strangulation and suffocation in pornography. We are standing by to see the detail of that.

Were you, in any shape or form, asking about spiking?

We are strongly of the view that we do not need further legislation on spiking. Spiking is addressed under common law as well as under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, so, in my view and in the view of the Government, there is not a legislative gap around that in Scotland. Legislation is there to prosecute people who do that and to imprison them for up to five years.

Where work has been done on spiking—the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, has led round-table discussions on the issue across the stakeholder groups and parties, and there has been considerable interest in it in the Parliament—the focus has been on raising awareness and on the work that Police Scotland does around the night-time economy in pubs and clubs. There has also been work on the pathway to report spiking and to get care. There was a need to be clear that people can and should report spiking, but they also needed a healthcare pathway.

For background, the UK Government legislated for a new offence in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We had asked for provision to be made in the Crime and Policing Bill, but the UK Government was not able to add provision for Scotland. We intend to explain the position of Scotland on the current law on the sharing of deepfakes, which is an offence. We will seek views on expanding the law to cover the creation of deepfakes. The sharing aspect is covered; the issue is around the creation of deepfakes.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum, the supplementary LCM and the second supplementary LCM in relation to those proposals in the UK Government’s Crime and Policing Bill for which the Scottish Parliament has devolved competence.

This large and complex bill covers numerous policy areas and, although we support its overall purpose in so far as it extends to Scotland, we have not needed to accept every measure, for example in cases where we have our own legislation in place or have plans to introduce our own legislation, such as in relation to child retention abroad, subject to consultation. However, where there are benefits to Scotland, the Scottish Government is happy to propose legislative consent to the relevant provisions in the bill.

The bill covers a range of important topics, and I would like to draw your attention to a couple of its provisions. The bill provides for a new, UK-wide offence in order to disrupt adults who criminally exploit children, supporting a four-nations approach to tackling child criminal exploitation. My officials continue to work with the UK Government on the offence as further amendments to the bill are expected.

Related to the child criminal exploitation offence is the new offence of cuckooing, which will seek to criminalise individuals who take control of the home of a vulnerable individual by intimidation or other means and use it to carry out criminality. Members will be aware of the devastating impact that criminal exploitation and cuckooing can have on individuals and their families and it is hoped that the new powers will strengthen our ability to prosecute those who exploit vulnerable people.

I have recently addressed questions raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in relation to several delegated powers in the bill, including questions on the powers to implement international agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes and on the power to make consequential provision. I look forward to reading the DPLRC’s report in due course.

We expect more amendments to the bill, which will trigger a further supplementary LCM to be laid shortly. My officials are still liaising with the UK Government on the detail of those new clauses. However, we expect them to include measures covering offensive weapons, child criminal exploitation prevention orders and online child sex abuse. We had initially hoped that the amendments would have been tabled in the House of Lords in sufficient time for us to lodge a third supplementary LCM in advance of this committee meeting, but we now expect the additional amendments to be tabled around mid-October.

The third supplementary LCM will also recommend extending clause 41 in relation to providing for the child criminal exploitation offence. The extension of that clause to Scotland was previously included in the draft bill but was accidentally omitted from the second supplementary LCM.

There is not enough time during my short opening remarks to go into detail on all the clauses that are contained in the LCMs, but I am more than happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

We sometimes get into differences of opinion on things such as online advertising, to give one example. The internet and its regulation is reserved, but if what is being promoted on the internet relates to a service or a particular action, we will, on occasion, argue that that is of relevance to our devolved competencies.

In relation to safeguards and reassurance, the Scottish Government considers that the LCM process is engaged when provisions apply to Scotland for the purpose of legislative competence. In the case that I am referring to, it relates to the steps that are required

“to prevent the advertisement, sale and supply of unlawful weapons in Scotland.”

In this instance, the UK Government considers that the provisions are wholly reserved for the reasons that I have outlined—because they relate to internet services. However, we have a different view. The other area of difference is on barred lists.

It is possible to have differences of opinion whereby both sides are agreed on the principle. That is why I will ultimately come down on the side of what will help to protect communities in the here and now. There are always debates in various forums about where power should lie—those are debates that I do not stand back from—but the fact is that the Scottish Government and the UK Government want to strengthen the action that can be taken against the harms that are caused by the promotion and flogging of dangerous weapons online. I want police in Scotland to have powers to issue notifications to remove content.

There are safeguards for those who are accused of being perpetrators. The committee will be well aware of the work that we did on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill around barred and advisory lists. The provisions in the UK bill relate to specialist police forces, only two of which are relevant to Scotland: the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency. We do not want people who have been found wanting in one law enforcement organisation to be able to get a job in another.

Good morning, convener, and thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I thank the committee for accommodating my request to move this session from last Wednesday, due to stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. That is much appreciated.

I very much welcome the committee’s inquiry into drugs in prisons, which recognises the significance, harmful impact and dynamic nature of issues that relate to illegal drug and substance supply in prisons, including concerns about the rise in strength of synthetic drugs, the impact on people in prison—and, of course, prison staff—and the importance of access to effective rehabilitation and support, on which, I am aware, you have taken evidence.

As the committee is aware, there is a high and complex prison population, and issues that relate to preventing supply, keeping people safe and managing the impact of substance use in prisons is demanding, to say the least, for the Scottish Prison Service as well as for our national health service colleagues and other partners. I put on record my thanks for the hard work and dedication of the staff in those organisations in keeping safe the people in our care as well as their colleagues.

The health and wellbeing of those in the care of the Scottish Prison Service is a key priority. Having been Minister for Drugs Policy and now Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I have a strong appreciation of the importance of a strategic approach across health and justice. I know that the committee is interested in how the health and justice portfolios are co-ordinating to reduce deaths and support recovery, and in how lived experience and evidence are being embedded in strategy.

As you may be aware, I chair a cross-portfolio ministerial group on prisoner health and social care, which provides clear leadership and helps to ensure a joined-up strategic approach to health and social care in prisons. The vision for justice provides an overarching strategic approach, including focusing on person-centred approaches to reduce crime and harm in our communities and support rehabilitation by the most effective means possible. Our national mission to reduce drug deaths continues to focus on a public health approach to improve the treatment and care provided for people with drug issues. The Scottish Prison Service’s 10-year drug and alcohol strategy, which was published in February, sets out a framework for improving the outcomes of people in custody.

I am sure that you will want to ask about a range of issues in more detail, convener, and I look forward to the committee’s questions, but first, I hand over to Ms Todd.

Mr Kerr is quite correct to point to the impact of significant overcrowding on prisoners, staff and access to drug treatment, as well as to other forms of rehabilitation. Overcrowding puts the system under immense stress.

I would be the last person in the room—and, I suspect, the last person in the Parliament—to ever demur from the serious and significant challenge that we face with a prison population that, as I have said on a number of occasions, is too high. Our prison population needs to be sustainable, because ultimately that is what keeps our communities safe; our prisons need to be able to accommodate those who pose the greatest risk.

I respectfully remind the member that every time that I have taken action I have reminded Parliament that there is no one solution. Early emergency release provides temporary relief. The Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025—and the programme known as STP40 that it brought in—reduces the prison population in a sustained way by 5 per cent from what it would otherwise have been.

I, too, would quote Teresa Medhurst, who also said in The Scotsman:

“I am grateful for the leadership and support we have received from the Cabinet Secretary ... and colleagues in the Scottish Government. Were it not for the emergency early release programme last year, and the Prisoners (Early Release) Scotland Act, which came into effect this year, our situation would be far worse.”

I accept that that in itself is not good enough, though, so I reassure the committee that I am intensively engaged with the Scottish Prison Service. I have always proactively kept Parliament up to date with the situation, and that will not change. Should new measures be required, I will announce them in Parliament, as I have always done.

I am perhaps going to be a little bit cheeky now, Mr Kerr. I have not walked away from my obligations to take action, but other members in the Parliament have often balked at such actions. I suggest that doing so is perhaps for political expediency instead of prioritising the safety and security of prison staff and managing a very high and complex prison population.

There is a lot in that question, Mr Kerr, so I hope that the convener will bear with me.

The latest figures show that in excess of 15,000 community payback orders have been issued across Scotland. Let me stress that I am very supportive of drug testing and treatment orders when they are appropriate for an individual. The latest figures show that, in 2023-24, there were 280 such orders; they are, by their very nature, a much more discrete intervention, and they obviously involve the courts. Their implementation also varies across the country, which has presented challenges in getting a firm view of their effectiveness.

I have visited drug courts that monitor drug testing and treatment orders, and I know that they have been very successful in helping many people turn their lives around. They are, like all community interventions, delivered locally, so I am very aware of the decision that Edinburgh services took and the impact that that had on East Lothian and Midlothian. I should stress again that these are local decisions.

The orders are effective for many people. The completion rate for a DTTO is around 51 per cent, with 75 per cent of those finishing without any breach. As I have said, the evidence on them is a bit complex.

The great strength of a community payback order is that it can be tailored to the individual. One thing that the sentencing and penal policy commission is looking at is how not just custody but community disposals are used. Why a comparatively low proportion of additional conditions that are specific to drug and alcohol treatment and mental health are put on community payback orders is an interesting question. I am not necessarily saying that that is right or wrong, because sometimes we forget to look at treatment and support in a much broader context. Treating someone’s addiction could be better than treating their trauma. We also need to consider employability, support with life skills and daily living, addressing the specifics around offending behaviour and any underlying attitudes as well as treatment of mental health and addiction issues.

As I have said, it is difficult to say at this point whether that is a good or a bad thing. We need to understand it more, but I can say that the strength of a community payback order is that it can be tailored to the needs of an individual.

That is a fair point, and it is why I took the opportunity to write to the new Secretary of State for Justice for England and Wales. My officials may have some insight as a result of their engagement.

The starting point is continuity of care and grasping the golden opportunities when individuals reach the point—which is often their lowest point—of recognising the changes on which they must embark. When people have those moments, we have to be ready to grasp them and we have to keep a hold of people in those times. Continuity of care is of fundamental importance, and it is a key part of the Scottish Prison Service’s drug and alcohol strategy.

There can be challenges for remand prisoners. Individuals on remand have access to addictions healthcare in prisons, which is different from recovery cafes and engagement with the recovery movement. One of the remarkable changes in prisons that I have seen over the past 25 years is the on-site presence of the voluntary sector and the recovery community—not just people with lived experience of addictions but those who have previously been in the criminal justice system and who have experienced imprisonment. They have been able to access prisons to be peer mentors and to engage with people, and that is a remarkable turnaround from a number of years ago.

There are some good examples of establishments that have been able to support remand prisoners in accessing recovery: Stirling and Kilmarnock, and also Greenock, if my memory serves me correctly. The Prison Service continues to scope new ways of working so that people on remand can access opportunities. That is challenging, given the number of prisoners on remand and the increase in the number of long-term prisoners, where a range of statutory obligations apply. The prison rules for remand prisoners are different, because they are untried. It is all caveated around the ability of people on remand to participate in education or work, while the situation is different for sentenced prisoners.