Chamber and committees

The independent Scottish Sentencing Council, with members comprising the judiciary, prosecutors, the police, academics and victims’ interests groups, and on whose establishment members agreed unanimously, prepared the guideline. Although the guideline is a matter for the council and the High Court to approve, I support the council in progressing its work in that area, which complements the Scottish Government’s vision for youth justice. That vision was published in June 2021, with a focus on early and effective intervention; opportunities to divert young people from prosecution; and improved experiences for those who enter the criminal justice system.

As Police Scotland has made clear, it has taken all necessary steps to protect the critical 999 emergency service and the non-emergency 101 service throughout the pandemic, and it has recently issued guidance to the public on the different ways to contact the police about emergencies and non-emergencies.

With a total budget allocation of £1.4 billion in 2022-23, we continue to protect real-terms funding for Police Scotland, which supports further investment in our 999 and 101 services through plans to introduce a new digital contact platform, which will further strengthen capabilities in that area.

It is worth giving some context to the figures that Jamie Greene has mentioned. First of all, the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission states that the Scottish budget has reduced in real terms by 5.2 per cent this year. We have increased the budget to the police by more than 3 per cent to £1.4 billion, as I have mentioned, and we have maintained the capital programme, despite further cuts from Westminster to our capital budget.

It is simply not enough for the Opposition just to say that it wants more money to be spent on education, justice or the environment—indeed, across the board—without identifying where that money would come from, given that we know that the Westminster Government that Jamie Greene supports is cutting funding to the Scottish Government.

We have to make difficult choices. I am very pleased that, despite that grim background from Westminster, we have increased funding to the police’s resource budget. We have allowed the police to increase salaries, which has not happened down south. We have also maintained the police’s capital budgets. We are taking the action that is necessary to ensure that services are maintained.

I mentioned in my previous answer the digital platform that Police Scotland, through the Scottish Police Authority, is seeking to develop. It is worth understanding why some calls are abandoned. Reasons that are given for that by Police Scotland—which, last year, introduced a range of measures to boost the 999 and 101 services—include that the police receive more than 3 million public contacts each year, and that officers and staff continue to prioritise 999 emergency calls, as they should.

Although the police have been prioritising emergency calls throughout the coronavirus pandemic, we have maintained the 101 service, despite high levels of absence and, of course, the restrictions that are due to physical distancing.

Many of the discontinued calls to which Jamie Greene referred will have been cases in which callers have been instructed to hang up and dial 999, or in which callers have decided to redial and select another option from a prerecorded menu. Sometimes, people opt to contact services through the website, or realise that they should be calling another agency. In addition, a significant number of both 999 and 101 calls are misdialled. Callers realise that and hang up.

Improvements are in train—I have mentioned the digital platform. Of course, it is right that there should be improvement. We will keep an eye on that. Of course, that is an operational responsibility for the police, through the SPA. Our responsibility is to ensure that the police are funded to make such improvements, and we are doing just that.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for her question, which allows me to say that the Scottish Government has exceeded, for example, the Conservative demand for an additional £62 million for justice and will invest an additional £188 million in 2022-23. Members should remember that there is no money for Covid recovery from the United Kingdom Government; we have to find that money from within our current budgets. The justice budget has benefited from the work of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy in that regard.

The policing budget is almost £1.4 billion for the coming year and we have maintained Police Scotland’s capital budget, which stands at £45.5 million—more than double what it was in 2017-18. All that will support continued investment in the police estate, fleet, specialist equipment and information and communications technology, and it will ensure, as the member suggests, that officers have the tools that they need to do their jobs effectively and to spend time in their communities.

It would be better if Teresa Medhurst answered that, as she has a much better grasp of exactly where we are on that. The member raises an interesting point and she knows the challenges that we have had on the issue. Teresa will have the up-to-date position.

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 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.

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.