���˿���

Amendment 55 comes right at the end of part 1, which deals with the modernisation of the court provisions. As we know, on 30 November 2025, the current temporary provisions that extend certain time limits in solemn cases will revert to the previous pre-pandemic time limits for new cases that enter the system. That is an issue that the committee has interrogated quite a lot during the bill process, and there was some recent movement on the issue on the part of the cabinet secretary, which I welcome and believe is commendable.

However, during the process, significant concerns were raised that the reversion was not without risk. As the committee’s stage 1 report notes, the Law Society told the committee that, due to issues around the capacity of the courts to accommodate trials,

“It is very difficult to see the courts getting back on track to the point where we will have trials within, for example, the 12-month time limit that applies in a bail case.”

The stage 1 report also notes that the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association said:

“The time limits are being extended on a daily basis. They are nowhere near pre-pandemic time limits. Time bars are being extended in just about every solemn case that I deal with.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 January 2025; c 29, 28.]

Finally, our report quotes the SCTS, which, when asked whether the system was on track for a return to pre-pandemic time limits, said:

“The short answer is no.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 21.]

My amendment 55, therefore, simply seeks to address those concerns. It provides that ministers must prepare and publish a report within one year of the solemn courts reverting to pre-pandemic time limits, in order to determine whether courts have been able to meet the time limits and what further measures might be needed if they are not being met.

I move amendment 55.

Would you like to come in, Katy?

I am grateful. Do colleagues have any further questions?

Our next item of business is to continue our inquiry into the harm that is caused by substance misuse in Scottish prisons. Today’s session will give us the opportunity to take evidence from a panel of witnesses with experience of supporting people in prison and their families. It is a preparatory session to help to shape our understanding of the key issues and inform the rest of our evidence taking.

I am pleased to welcome Kevin Neary, co-founder and co-ordinator, Aid & Abet; Dr Sarah Rogers, senior policy and public affairs officer, Families Outside; Professor Susanna Galea-Singer, clinical lead and consultant psychiatrist, NHS Fife addiction services; Gemma Muir, senior manager, Sustainable Interventions Supporting Change Outside; and Tracey McFall, chief executive officer, Scottish Recovery Consortium. I refer members to papers 2 and 3, and I thank the witnesses who provided written submissions in advance. I intend to allow up to two hours for the session.

I will commence with a pretty open question, which I will give each of you the opportunity to respond to. I will start with Kevin Neary. What are the impacts of people using substances in prison on those who are using the substances and/or their families and other prisoners?

I am very grateful—that is extremely helpful to start us off. Dr Rogers, you talked persuasively about what happens when families are visiting and there is an issue that means that contact is not allowed or children are not allowed to interact properly with the prisoner. On the flip side, presumably, the SPS has to be ultra-cautious in order to prevent substances getting into prison in the first place. Do you have any thoughts on how the balance can be struck such that there is not the negative impact that you persuasively outlined but that, at the same time, the SPS can do its job to the best of its ability?

That is very helpful.

Thank you. Before I bring in Pauline McNeill, I will take a short supplementary from Rona Mackay. First, I have a quick question for Kevin Neary on matters that he was discussing with Sharon Dowey. What about protected or segregated prisoners? Is there an issue with them accessing programmes because different types of prisoners cannot mix?

I thank you all for what has been a very interesting and informative session for us. It will be extremely helpful to the committee as we shape our inquiry.

Throughout the session, some of you have offered to write to the committee with further information—for example, Tracey McFall offered to send on some data. The committee loves data, so if you have something in which we would be interested, please send it on.

Gemma Muir, you said something interesting about the play that you wrote—I am sure that we would value more details on that if you were able to send them in.

That is now on the public record.

At our next meeting, on Wednesday 11 June, we will consider an affirmative SSI on home detention curfew licences and a negative SSI on firefighters’ pensions, and we will begin stage 2 proceedings on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. Members may wish to recall that the deadline for lodging amendments for stage 2 of that bill is noon tomorrow.

With that, we move into private session.

Thank you. We will move to questions from colleagues.