Chamber and committees

Of course. I understand the implications of that.

Ms Medhurst, what were the criteria for coming to a decision about early release? I ask that not to look backwards, but because the bill that is before us means that the same situation could arise again. From what you said earlier, the criteria seemed to be largely to do with your ability to confine people in single-occupancy spaces, given the issue of population versus capacity. What criteria did you use for the early release of prisoners? Would you use the same criteria again? If not, what would be different?

I guess that, from a practical point of view, the families of those in prisons will most likely want to know what the current status is of that prison, which would be helpful for them.

I turn to my other question. From the responses that we have had, there seems to be support for extending the instrument by six months. Why six months? Is that in keeping with what the Parliament is doing with coronavirus measures? If the Parliament is legislating to end coronavirus measures for the wider public, why is there still a need for them to be extended in this case? What is so different about the prison environment that you need to keep extending the powers by six months, while we are ending them or do not really see the need to extend them for that long? Do you think that you will be coming back in another six months, asking for the powers again? I know that we do not know what will happen with the virus, but the measures seem like an endless iteration of what were only just temporary powers two years ago.

Good morning, colleagues.

For the record, I note that this is the third session of the Scottish Parliament in which the petition has been considered and the third iteration of a justice committee to consider it. As with the next petition that we will consider today, it is my view that this petition should not remain open indefinitely. Indeed, it has been open for more than a decade now, and it is in the best interests of the committee and its work, and of the campaigners—on which I have no specific view—that some other recourse be sought. If the work carried out in three parliamentary sessions has not been able to address the campaign’s wishes and needs, I cannot see our committee having the time and ability to do so either.

Of course, there are still some important considerations to take place. The family’s legal representation is well within its rights to pursue the legal recourse that is available, and it can make direct representation to the Government and its ministers. I would also note that we have a new justice secretary, one of many with whom those involved with the petition have dealt over the years. That would be the best line for them to pursue, but not for this committee. Given that this is a very specific and direct case, I suggest that, if we do not close the petition today, we at the very least agree a future date for coming to a decision on what we recommend next, to give the committee closure in this parliamentary session.

The difference between this petition and the previous one, albeit that they have been open for comparable lengths of time and have both straddled multiple sessions of Parliament, is that there is a commitment from the Government to introduce the outcome that the petitioner seeks.

However, words on paper are different from deeds and actions. A manifesto relates to a parliamentary session, whereas a programme for government is an annual statement. The proposal was in the 2021-22 programme for government and there are only a few months of that period left. Therefore, I suggest that, until we have sight of either the required legislation or a more detailed proposal from the Government—even something as a simple as a policy for the Parliament to consider—it would be in our interest to write to the cabinet secretary to ask him to outline timescales for the actions that the Government has promised to take. At that point, if we are satisfied that the actions will deliver what the petitioner seeks, we can consider closing the petition, but it should remain open for now.

I will try to rattle through my points. To be helpful, I will identify them in relation to the committee’s conclusions by number. I will start with our point 139. On the overall budget, the cabinet secretary’s written response says that there will be

“a 7% increase in the portfolio resource budget”,

but it is unclear from the response whether there will be any increase in the capital budget or what the increase will be. That is important, because it comes up later in some of our recommendations.

On prisons and prison reform, there is an increase of £15 million to the Scottish Prison Service resource budget. It is unclear where that money is going or what it is for. Is it for staff or other forms of people-related expenditure rather than things? The £73 million capital funding is merely an extension of existing commitments. It will enable the conclusion of the construction of the female custodial estate and other pieces of work such as those at Inverness and Barlinnie. We know that that work might already be going over budget. That does not seem to be new money.

Our point 162 was that there is no increase in the capital budgets for either Police Scotland or the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It seems to me that the only capital money that is mentioned is for things that we already knew about. For example, it will not cover any investment in HMP Greenock or HMP Dumfries. That might not necessarily mean complete replacements; it could just be necessary infrastructure upgrades as per the recommendations of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in Scotland.

In relation to point 162 and the police capital budget, it was clear from the evidence that was given to us not just by the police but by other stakeholders, including the Scottish Police Federation, that there is an absolute necessity for increased capital for essential modernisation. It is not just about cherry picking upgrades; it is for things that are necessary to allow the police to continue to perform their duties. There seems to be nothing for digital and information and communications technology, fleet, the police estate or the police’s greening or net zero targets. That is noted.

We heard from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—or at least from its union—that some of the fire service’s estate is not fit for purpose. There is £9.5 million mentioned for modernisation, although I am not quite sure where that is going. It certainly does not seem to scratch the surface of what is needed.

Those are not necessarily criticisms; they are just observations on the responses.

Our point 173 was about the national community justice strategy. The Government simply says in response that that is “under development” and will launch this year, but it does not mention what budget will be allocated. We made a specific ask that it should be adequately funded. I note that no response was given to that.

The other major area of contention for me is on legal aid. The committee took a lot of evidence on that issue. I accept that there is disagreement between various stakeholders, but we made it clear that the profession, if nothing else, is clear that the Government has failed to address issues on fees and the negotiations on them. The one-line answer was that the Government “does not accept” that position.

The Government did not respond to point 182, nor to point 184, which included a helpful suggestion about the Public Defence Solicitors Office that I thought had come from other members as we worked through the process. No response was provided by the Government. That is just not good enough.

On the issue of tackling drugs deaths, it was disappointing that the Government did not respond to points 189 and 191. We made a specific recommendation for a modest injection of funds for recovery clinics in prisons, as the committee discussed earlier, and also for residential rehab and community day centres. We also asked for clarification of how all the budgets work together, because we know that the drugs deaths crisis crosses many portfolios. The Government provided no response to either of those points. Given the gravity of the situation, that is disappointing.

As we reflect on the budget process, we may want to look back on those issues or push the Government further.

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.