Meeting of the Parliament 26 February 2026 [Draft]
A key function of the committee system in a unicameral Parliament is to be independent of Government and party. At the outset, it is important to put on record that, in producing the report, the committee has largely fulfilled that objective, to its great credit. On that, it is important to thank the clerks and the advisers to the committee for facilitating and assisting with such a detailed and comprehensive inquiry, as well as all those who gave evidence, facilitated visits and candidly opened up about their experiences and challenges. The inquiry was detailed and cross party and, as Rona Mackay said, it was, at times, pretty difficult and harrowing. It examined evidence from the Government, the Scottish Prison Service, NHS representatives, third sector organisations, prison officers and those who have experienced addiction while in custody.
In many ways, we start from a common position. Scotland’s prisons are at capacity. They are overcrowded and face considerable challenges, which, as many members have pointed out today, have consequences. The parties mentioned in the report and, indeed, the members who are speaking in the chamber today will have very different perspectives on why that is the case and what the response should be, but I think that we are united in our conclusions that Scotland’s prisons face a public health emergency—one that is driven by trauma, inequality, mental health deficits and evolving drug markets.
Our report found that drug use in prisons was widespread and that substance misuse in Scotland’s prisons is entwined with overcrowding, workforce pressures, mental ill health, organised crime and regime instability. The figures underline that reality. Between 2012 and 2023, 50 drug misuse deaths occurred in custody. Sue Webber said that, in 2024 alone, 64 people died in prison. That is a 60 per cent increase on the previous year. The Prison Officers Association Scotland—POAS—told the committee that, since 2015, drug recoveries have increased by 80 per cent and weapon finds by 181 per cent. The evidence that it supplied for the debate shows that nearly 40 per cent of prisoners report using illegal drugs while in custody. Those are not isolated statistics, and they describe a custodial environment under sustained strain.
The committee heard about synthetic drugs, which Elena Whitham mentioned, creating volatility and unpredictability. We heard about organised crime adapting supply routes, including through drones, which the governor of Perth prison recently described as “public enemy number one”.
We heard about the operational consequences of episodes related to the management of offender at risk due to any substance—MORS—policy and hospital transfers. The POAS survey has some significant input in that regard, which we should all be aware of.
We agree that access to treatment and support is unsatisfactory, as are the levels of continuity of care for people leaving prison. Specifically, our report explored the long waiting times that offenders experience for mental health assessments, shortages of specialist staff and frequent disruption to services, all of which limit the provision of effective care.
We also heard from prison officers, who raised concerns about exposure to drug fumes, the practical operation of the MORS policy, training, and the physical and psychological demands placed on staff—and, of course, the fact is that these are the people who have to deal with deaths in custody. Their evidence must be taken really seriously, and their calls for action on PPE, investment and staffing levels need to be acted on.
I am pleased that the committee’s report does not frame the issue solely as a security or criminal problem, nor does it frame it solely as a public health problem. It is both, as the convener succinctly set out. We made many important recommendations, including on the need for improved national leadership and co-ordination, and on the implementation of medication assisted treatment standards across the prison estate. That is why I welcome much of the Scottish Government’s initial response, which acknowledges many of the pressures identified in the report. The response sets out work that is under way, including implementation of the target operating model, recovery initiatives, regime reviews and work around purposeful activity and family contact. It includes commitments to publish the alcohol and drugs strategic plan in March 2026, to develop and publish national standards for throughcare support over the next two years and to continue the roll-out and implementation of the MAT standards across the secure estate.
That activity is noted, but I speak for the committee when I say that what is key—and is absolutely the committee’s focus—is the outcomes of those interventions. A future Parliament must see deaths in custody reduce, drug-related hospital transfers decrease and access to treatment that is consistently proportionate to need. Further, purposeful activity must be protected in practice, not only in principle. Importantly, staff safety concerns, particularly around exposure and implementation of the MORS policy, must be understood and formally reviewed, and maximum protections must be put in place. On all those issues and more, the committee’s position is that our Parliament in the future must be able to assess measurable change, with full, honest transparency that enables scrutiny of impact, not only process.
Members across the chamber have rightly spoken about trauma, inequality and mental health. The report addresses those drivers directly and demands firm, concrete action, but it also recognises that recovery cannot take root in an environment of instability. Prevention cannot succeed where regimes are repeatedly disrupted, and staff cannot deliver safe, effective custody if they feel unprotected.
As a committee, we have made 50 recommendations across six themes. They are practical and evidence based and they reflect consensus that has been reached after extensive evidence gathering. Our report is comprehensive and coherent.
Today’s debate is important, but what matters far more is what follows it. When members in the next session of Parliament consider the issues, they must look for evidence that harm has reduced, that safety has improved and that custody in Scotland is delivering the rehabilitation that we need to see in practice. That is the standard that the committee has set and it is the standard to which the Parliament must be held.