Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 15 October 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1245 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

Good morning, panel members. I go first to Marianna Marquardt. I suspect that Haydn Pasi, based on something that she said earlier, will want to follow up on it.

The committee has heard evidence of a link between substance use in prisons and mental health challenges. Your response to the call for views raises the lack of mental health services and also suggests that there is a

“lack of integration between substance use and mental health services in prison.”

Can you expand on that for the committee? In particular, what impact does inadequate provision have on prisoners and their families?

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

I understand. Before I bring in Haydn Pasi, I will press you on something, Marianna. In your response to the call for views, you said

“that you can only have a drug worker or a mental health worker, not both.”

I found that quite interesting, and I think that the committee will as well. Will you explain how that operates in practice?

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

I understand—I am grateful, thank you.

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

Dr Connell, alcohol problems are a significant issue in prison. You referred to a 2011 report, but a report by Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, “Alcohol (in)justice”, published in 2024, has broadly similar figures: 63 per cent of people in prison have alcohol use disorder and 31 per cent are dependent on it. For people who are in prison who have alcohol issues, are the impacts on their mental and physical health similar to those who are presenting with drug issues? If not, how are they different?

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

You spoke about people using substances as a coping strategy. Earlier, we heard that there is relatively little opportunity for prisoners to access alcohol, but there might be opportunities for them to access to drugs. Is there any evidence to suggest that people with alcohol issues replace alcohol with drug use while they are in prison?

Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)

Substance Misuse in Prisons

Meeting date: 3 September 2025

Liam Kerr

Following on from that point, I have a question for Dr Graham about consistency of support in the prison system for people with alcohol use disorders. In your submission, you suggest that there is no consistency of support across the estate, and you refer to a lack of overarching standards and accountability. How inconsistent is the provision of that support? What solutions do you think need to be put in place? You referred to mutual aid and peer recovery networks, which the committee would be particularly interested to hear about.

Criminal Justice Committee

Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Liam Kerr

Ash Regan, I completely understand the point that you made in response to Rona Mackay’s question much earlier in the session about the quashing of convictions, which is dealt with in sections 4 and 5, but there is a lot of writing from a legal perspective around lex temporis, which means that the law at the time of the offence should govern the legality. For me, the logical progression of that would mean that quashing convictions retrospectively could undermine legal certainty, authority and trust in the legal system and that it could undermine the law’s neutrality and make it more of a moral judgment. How do you respond to that challenge to sections 4 and 5?

Criminal Justice Committee

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Liam Kerr

Thank you for that—perhaps you could send that data to the committee. As I said, in the consultation, expert organisations have told us that that evidence is not there, so that would be helpful.

The current situation is that the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse in Scotland gives people the right to ask about the background of their partner and find out whether someone has a history of domestic abuse. It also gives Police Scotland the power to tell people that they might be at risk; they do not even need to ask.

That raises a question. What would the introduction of the notification and monitoring requirements in your bill add to the current landscape?

Criminal Justice Committee

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Liam Kerr

Before he does, I note that your answer suggests that any issue with the existing scheme is due to a lack of knowledge and awareness of what is already there. If that is right, surely what is needed is not more legislation that arguably does a similar thing but better knowledge and awareness among people about what to do and where to go if they find themselves in a certain situation.

Criminal Justice Committee

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Liam Kerr

On that exact issue, Pauline McNeill has talked about implementation of good, well-meaning schemes. However, I think that we can all agree that the failure to implement the Caledonian scheme—which Rona Mackay asked about—is deeply regrettable. Pam Gosal mentioned earlier that the 2021 act cannot be implemented because it was poorly drafted.

Is there a risk, therefore, that bringing in further legislation in that context that layers on further safeguards and provisions—which are very important—would simply mean that we would have more schemes that, ultimately, would not be brought in fully? That could be more negative than not bringing the bill forward at all.