Chamber and committees

I sort of alluded to the issue of correspondence. On an issue such as legal aid, where the Government simply responds by saying that it respectfully disagrees, that is fine. The Government is entirely within its rights to disagree either with stakeholders who have given evidence or with the committee’s summary and recommendations. It is entirely appropriate for the Government to disagree with committees and their findings—that is common and I do not have a problem with it—but when the Scottish Government does not answer questions at all on important issues, I would push back, uncontroversially, and say, “With respect, cabinet secretary, the committee made a recommendation, and just to say that no response has been provided is not good enough.” If a further response comes back to say that a response is not possible or that the cabinet secretary disagrees with the committee, that is fine. That is a response. However, to say that there is no response is not a response. I would be minded to push back on those issues.

It is also worth noting, however, that this is just a draft budget. The budget will go through its iterative process. Political parties and their spokespeople are within their rights to press the Government for more money on whatever they want and that will form part of the negotiations. There may be other opportunities for revisiting these issues as the budget goes through the process. By the time we get to the final stages of the budget, we will know what the final numbers are. It is not necessarily a given that the numbers that have been presented to us are the final numbers, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary has the wherewithal to request as much as he thinks is needed, off the back of the committee’s recommendations, from his colleagues in Government. Perhaps we could schedule an opportunity for the committee to review later iterations of the numbers to see whether they meet us some way in some of our tasks.

I have three brief points to make, the first of which is in relation to the evidence that we took last week. I felt that, at the end of that session, we were none the wiser as to the volume of mail that is being intercepted. A number of points that were raised, which are primarily around the process of mail interception, would merit being followed up, perhaps in writing, with the Scottish Prison Service or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans.

I think that there might have been some miscommunication to or confusion in the wider public sphere around what mail is being stopped and not passed to prisoners, what mail is being photocopied and what mail is or is not being read. The same applies to the process, where that takes place and who does that.

Having transparency on that issue would perhaps help and offer reassurance to the families of those in prison, as well as those who might not be fully aware of what the Scottish statutory instrument means and does in real life.

I appreciate that there could be operational reasons why some information might be sensitive to share in public, which I think that the cabinet secretary hinted at last week. I am content with that if that were to be the case, and I understand the reasons for it, but perhaps that information could be shared confidentially with committee members, as is the norm with such information.

My second point is an issue that I raised last week. It is not just physical mail, including cards, that is soaked in illicit substances. We know that items are brought into prison in other ways. Now that serious organised criminal gangs can no longer rely on traditional forms of smuggling drugs into prison via paper, how else will the drugs get in? It would be naive to think that that would simply stop altogether.

We know that, for example, items of clothing or other parcels that have been sent to prisoners have been pre-soaked in drugs in the past. We also know that we are starting to see a resurgence in methods—the old-fashioned ways, if you like—of getting illicit substances over the perimeter fence. I am keen for the Government and the SPS to keep us posted on that.

My final point is an issue that I tried to raise last week but was unable to because we ran out of time. It relates to digital communication and what alternatives are being offered, such as email systems. I do not mean mobile telephony; I am talking about fixed devices or other forms of electronic communication, which allow families to privately, directly, confidentially, quickly and easily communicate with their loved ones in prisons. We did not get a chance to talk about that in great detail. I would appreciate getting an update on those issues, too.

What I am getting at is that, if so much mail has been posted, that is clearly a misuse of drugs. Those are classified drugs. Someone is posting them, so criminal behaviour is taking place somewhere in society but there does not seem to be a huge amount of follow-up or any prosecution. If people were being prosecuted for sending drugs, it might act as a disincentive for others in the future.

That might also be helpful, but I am looking for the figures since the implementation of the new policy. What percentage of all the mail that comes in is currently being photocopied?

Thank you for that. However, I presume that, if something is clearly identifiable as being from a family member, because it includes a message such as “Dear son”, “Dear brother” or “Dear Dad”, it is obvious where the mail originates from and, if it contains drugs, there is clearly an issue there. Perhaps, with some input from the police, the cabinet secretary could write to us on that.

My last question is in response to the cabinet secretary’s opening statement, in which I believe that he said that original items will be returned to prisoners on their release. This might be an obvious question, but could mail that is still soaked in drugs be returned to prisoners on their release? Clearly, we want those prisoners to go back into society drug-free and to mitigate any potential for them to return to misuse or addiction. Handing them back drugs seems a sure-fire way to send them down the spiral of ending up back in prison.

I appreciate that. If etizolam can be sent in the post, the big issues are about what else can be sent and how else it can be sent. People clearly still want to get drugs into prisons, and some prisoners will still want drugs to get in as well, so the really big question is, “What next?”

My next question is for the cabinet secretary. It is clear that serious organised criminal gangs are the primary drivers of drugs getting into prisons to feed addiction and to feed their lucrative market. You said that confiscated mail would be passed to the police if there was a suspicion of drugs. Are the police following that up? Are you aware of any criminality taking place? Has anyone been prosecuted for posting mail that is soaked in drugs? Is there any recourse when it comes to prisoners who receive the mail? Does it affect parole conditions or their behaviour card, for example?

In the interests of time, my questions will probably be quite rapid-fire ones. My first question is to Ms Medhurst. Can you give us an indication of what percentage or proportion of original mail has been photocopied and passed to prisoners as photocopied versus the percentage or proportion of mail that has been given to prisoners directly in its original form? As you have said, it is quite difficult to spot original mail that has been soaked in drugs.

Okay. Thank you.

I come to my second rapid-fire question. It is not just mail that contains drugs; I am aware from speaking to prison officers that clothes are often soaked in drugs. Obviously, that is very difficult to deal with. How on earth are you going to manage the incidence of that?

I appreciate it. Thank you.

There is very little with which to disagree in what I have heard in the previous two answers. It is a collective problem, but I am trying to get to the nub of what happens next. To me, that is still unclear.

I raise the issue because I listened with great interest to the language used by the cabinet secretary, who represents the Government and sits in the Parliament, about how we could make quite significant changes. I appreciate that those changes, whether they are trials or are more permanent, will require legislative change. However, is the legislative change simply a technical requirement to enable the changes to happen, or is it the legislative change that informs the changes?

When asked about juryless trials or other such changes, the cabinet secretary went to great lengths to say that those were matters for the Lord Advocate. Therefore, I am trying to understand whether you, Lord Advocate, are advising the Government as to what changes it should be introducing through legislation—which the individual members of Parliament will debate and vote on—or whether you are looking to the Parliament to come back with a set of proposals that you will then be forced to introduce as the Lord Advocate.