I am sorry, convener—the connection cut out for a second.

Yesterday, we heard from the United Kingdom Minister for Crime and Policing, Kit Malthouse, and a number of us had an exchange on this subject. He said that it is a very complex issue. As you know, our Lord Advocate might consider the question and she is already consulting the police and so on. Kit Malthouse asked, “If we set up an overdose prevention site in Govan, would you arrest someone who was travelling to Govan from Edinburgh?” I think that there is quite a simple answer to that, but I want to ask you, as a former chief constable.

In Glasgow, we had tolerance zones for what was then called street prostitution. It is not complex, to my mind. If you set up a zone in which you disapply the law, anyone outside that zone would be breaking the law. Is it your view that the question is too complex? I know that you support the setting up of tolerance zones. The minister who is in charge of the 1971 act says that it is really complex. I am not sure that I agree with that.

The minister of state went on to say that he thinks that there are complex questions that need to be answered if we are to legislate in that way. I recognise that, ideally, reform of the 1971 act would be the best position—for other reasons, as well.

As the minister said, provision of safe drug consumption facilities is not a magic bullet. Nothing is. However, the Lord Advocate is on the record saying that she will consider whether it might be in the public interest. It would be complex for any Lord Advocate to make a decision about whether, in the public interest, you would not prosecute under the 1971 act in certain areas if it was a public health issue and prevented deaths. My question is twofold. Do you think that those complexities can be overcome? If the Lord Advocate—who is yet to make a decision—were to make a decision in that vein, would it negate the immediate necessity to reform the 1971 act, because it would have the same effect?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, minister, and thank you for appearing before us. I will press you further on safe drug consumption rooms. That is not because I do not agree with everything else that you say. I get the point that you make, but there are 66 cities throughout the world with consumption rooms and there have been no deaths at the sites that Gillian Mackay referred to. Moreover, 300 health professionals in England and Wales signed a letter after the Health and Social Care Committee at Westminster called for the introduction of drug consumption rooms.

Are you aware that the Lord Advocate in Scotland, Dorothy Bain, has said on the record that, if she is asked to consider the question in the context of public health and rising deaths, she will deliver a decision about whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute people who use in safe consumption rooms? As you said, minister, there are complicated questions, but such questions can be answered in law. To me, it is clear that we can clarify that, in the example that you gave in Govan, in the public interest and in order to save lives, the law would not be applied in designated areas.

Do you accept that the evidence so far suggests that establishing DCRs does not send out the wrong message? The evidence that I have seen shows that it does not tend to encourage further drug use.

I totally agree with you that there are questions about how the police would address the situation that you mentioned, but that could be dealt with. I suppose that the Lord Advocate—or, indeed, anyone else—would have to wrestle with a decision on what guidance would be issued in order to address that. I accept that it is complicated, but do you not agree that it could be done?

Thank you.

I am happy to support what the convener and Russell Findlay have said, but we need to review whether we should keep any petition open for such a long time. I am content for the time being, but I wanted to point that out.

I do not think that it is necessary to write to the Scottish Government. There is a judicial process and we are being asked to wait and see whether the family decide to lodge an appeal, which they are legally entitled to do. We should leave it at that.

I will start with the point that Russell Findlay made about fatal accident inquiries. There is a lot to welcome, but I have a few points that need further investigation or amplification.

I, too, am surprised that the cabinet secretary thinks that the current system for deaths in custody represents the right model for the future, given the extraordinary length of time that families are waiting. A big piece of work by the Scottish Government is needed, along with some investment.

I do not fully understand the relationship between the response and the Scottish Government’s recent statement that deaths in custody will be investigated independently. We heard that powers will be given to those who are tasked with that to ensure that they can get on with the job of getting to the bottom of deaths in custody with no barriers and with unfettered access. We have had an extraordinary number of deaths in custody, and a lot of families are really concerned about the length of time that it takes to investigate them. I share Russell Findlay’s view that there seems to be a bit of complacency on the issue. I would have thought that there needs to be some investment attached to the measures.

My second point relates to the implementation of measures in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, such as victims being offered support when making a statement. It seems to be a theme for the committee to explore whether there should be more formal support for victims in the system, either through being legally represented or in other ways. We need further investigation into that.

Finally, the Government has an excellent and comprehensive programme on violence against women and girls. I would like to see investment to ensure that the action plan is sustainable and that we make achievements along the way. I have made the point in Parliament a few times that there are cross-cutting issues between the justice portfolio and, for example, the equalities portfolio in relation to attitudes to violence against women and girls. We have seen high levels of sexual harassment of girls at a very young age. In some of our private sessions, we have discussed concerns about rape culture and other social issues. I would like cross-cutting investment between the justice department and other departments that have an obvious interest in that matter.

I largely agree with Russell Findlay’s comments. We need to take proportionate action to tackle the scourge of drugs in our prisons, and I am content that the regulations are necessary.

As other members did, I asked the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, for reassurances in relation to prisoners who might innocently get caught up in what is happening. I felt satisfied that prisoners would be present if any suspect mail went through the process. That gave me some reassurance.

I think that it is useful to put on the record that the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation has written to the committee to express concerns. It acts on behalf of convicted prisoners when it feels that there is a credible case that there has been a miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that correspondence.

I for one will be listening out and monitoring the impact of the regulations, to make sure that they are proportionate.

One of the concerns that Families Outside raises is that families of prisoners might stop writing to them because of a fear that something untoward would happen to their innocently sent correspondence, such as birthday cards.

For those reasons, I think that the committee should keep an eye on the regulations.