Chamber and committees

My response to the question about a review was that we have not planned that, but there is a kind of on-going review. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to commit to providing an update to the committee in whatever timescale you think would be appropriate. As has been said, we are only four weeks into the system. After a three-month period, we will have a better idea of how things are panning out, so that might be a good point at which to provide an update to the committee. That might include elements of a review but, in any event, it would be good to update the committee on progress.

I will try to respond, but Teresa Medhurst will have more of the detail.

The measure applies to general correspondence, but not all correspondence is opened, and there are different practices in different prisons. The approach might be targeted or it might be random, but not all correspondence is opened. I mentioned the exemptions, such as legally privileged information. I am aware that legally or medically privileged information can present a route to people trying to circumvent the system, so measures are taken to try to avoid that. Interestingly, we are aware of correspondence that purports to relate to the child abuse inquiry going to prisoners but which is nothing of the kind—it is a means to try to get drugs into the prison estate.

It is a difficult issue to deal with. I am sure that Teresa will not want to be too explicit about the ways in which we try to ensure that drugs do not get into the estate. However, not all correspondence is opened. We will look at personal correspondence, including correspondence from children, which is perhaps one of the most sensitive areas in relation to the issue. We have taken measures that are proportionate. We will ensure that prisoners get the original correspondence, where that is possible. Not all correspondence is opened. The approach is targeted or random, and I believe that it is proportionate.

Teresa might want to come in on that.

Again, Teresa Medhurst is best placed to answer that. There has been increased detection in that respect, so the system seems to be working well. Perhaps Teresa can give more information.

I do not. Teresa Medhurst might know the answer.

I come back to Mr Findlay’s previous point. He asked whether there had been a reduction in mail as a consequence of the measure. There is another consequence in which he might be interested. As I have mentioned before to the Parliament, sometimes, when we try to deal with drugs in prison, if we deal with one aspect, it causes an increase elsewhere. That is what has happened in this case: there has been an increase in the number of perimeter fence attempts to provide drugs in prison.

It is clear that there is a tidal wave—[Inaudible.]—and we do what we can, not least given what Teresa Medhurst said about the changing nature of drugs. Mr Findlay is right to say that there is a consequence to what we do.

I do not know who the academics consulted. They have a legitimate point and we are happy to take into account their concerns for the rights of prisoners and others. I point out that one of the initiatives came from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, who is very concerned, and obliged to be concerned, about prisoners’ rights. We believe that the measure is a proportionate response to safeguard those rights.

Perhaps Teresa Medhurst could answer the question about who the academics consulted before they made their submission.

We will commence the review of the victim notification scheme early next year, to ensure that it serves victims effectively. That was agreed by the victims task force in March, and we continue to engage with partners to develop the review. The task force’s preference is for the review to be led by an independent chairperson, supported by a working group of representatives of the organisations that operate the scheme and victims’ organisations. We intend to proceed on that basis.

The detailed approach and remit of the review are being considered. It is likely to include matters such as the possible extension to the scheme’s scope, information sharing between agencies and links with the task force’s work on developing a victim-centred approach.

On victims generally, what is really important is that we ensure that we reduce the number of victims in society. Our having far more police officers per capita than there are elsewhere in the United Kingdom, giving them a wage increase and the achievement of some of the lowest recorded levels of crime are important in reducing the number of victims.

It is also true that a number of areas to do with victims should be looked at. As Tess White said, a review has never been more appropriate, which is why we are taking forward a review that will cover all aspects of victims in the justice system.

The intention is to ensure that, right across the justice system, the approach becomes much more victim centred and trauma informed. That is a small thing to say, but it is a big goal to have in mind; it is the Scottish Government’s goal. If we achieve that, we will make more improvements, on top of the changes that we have made in recent years to improve how we treat victims in the justice system.

As I said, we intend to have a victim-centred approach. As part of that, we recognise the importance of ensuring that victims’ voices are heard, including through representation on the victims task force, the renew, recover and transform advisory group and reference groups in which victims share their experiences and expertise, to help to inform policy and practice.

We have legislated to strengthen victims’ rights and voices—from the introduction of the victims code for Scotland and the standards of service for victims and witnesses to the strengthening of the victim notification and victim statement schemes.

We recognise that more can be done. We will continue to work with partners to improve victims’ experience.

There is perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of Mr Carson as to how the fund is to work. The amount raised is entirely dependent on the number and value of fines imposed by the courts, and it was always going to take a number of years for the fund to build up. Only individuals or organisations who have been cautioned after 2019 are affected, and their cases will take time to progress through the court. Members will of course know the impact of the pandemic on the court system.

It is true to say that the collection rate for the victim surcharge in Scotland is 79 per cent, which compares favourably with the rate in England and Wales, which is 61 per cent. Notwithstanding the pandemic, we of course expect the amount that can be paid out to victims organisations to increase in future years.

It has had a substantial impact. People in prison now are generally serving longer sentences and there are far fewer people serving sentences of less than 18 months, because of legislation that was previously passed. Other interventions that have taken place under this Scottish Government have also helped to deal with the situation that the member mentions. We are very conscious that more needs to be done, not least in relation to some of the proposals in the bail and release bill. That is currently out for consultation.

I will have to refer to what currently happens. Along with the work of the victims task force, my officials and representatives of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service meet monthly with victim support organisations and provide feedback on how their input is helping to shape our approach to making improvements to the justice system to aid victims’ recovery.

An advisory group including victims organisations was established to provide the criminal justice board with independent expert advice on the potential impacts that could arise for people who go through the justice system. Members of the criminal justice board have, in turn, attended the advisory group to feed back on the advice that has been received.