Chamber and committees

I will try to stick to that general theme, but I have some specific questions. I would like to interrogate Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. I thank Wendy Sinclair-Gieben for her written submission, which I thought was quite stark. The first page paints a rather grim picture of Scottish prisons. It talks about overcrowding, high levels of substance abuse, mental health challenges, what is described as a

“fragile organisation with aging infrastructure”

and critical inspections. Given what we now know about the endemic problem of drug and substance abuse in Scottish prisons, have we simply got it wrong in Scotland? We have high remand rates and one of the highest incarceration rates in northern Europe, and Scottish prisons seem to be a revolving door of drugs, reoffending and poor mental health outcomes. What are we getting so wrong?

Thank you, convener. I have a supplementary on the line of questioning on parole. I indicated that I also have a question on alternatives to custody, because we have not really discussed that issue today, but I am happy to keep that for later, if we have time.

The number of people involved in the victim notification scheme is dropping year on year. At the moment, it is an opt-in service. I vividly remember from reading the Parole Board for Scotland’s submission that the word “victim” was not used once. Is that not the root of the problem? The entire submission is centred around how we make parole better for those involved in the hearings—in other words, those in prison. None of the submissions says how we can proactively improve the victim notification scheme, so that we tell people who have been affected by serious crimes that those who perpetrated them are back out on the street, in order that they do not bump into them in the queue at the supermarket.

I am sure that we will have that discussion in future sessions. I look forward to reading your submission.

Convener, would you like me to ask my other question now?

In your submission, you say:

“The choice is stark—either we put fewer people in prison or we recognise that we have to pay for the prison population that we do have”.

We know that we are not putting fewer people in prison. Does that mean that we are not paying for the prison population that we have?

My question for the Scottish Prison Service follows on from my colleague’s question. We gave about 8,000 prisoners a mobile phone for in-cell use during the pandemic, when there were obvious reasons for doing so. Those mobile phones were supposed to be unhackable. Why are so many of them being used to buy drugs in prisons?

My other question is about parole. However, it is not on this theme, so I am happy to come back in later, if you will allow that.

Thank you for clarifying that.

On the theme of the modernisation of the prison estate, that comes back to the premise of how we get prison numbers down, what type of prisons we build and how we best use public money to ensure that prisons are places that people can come out of adequately rehabilitated and suitably ready for transition back into the community, which is something that everybody wants.

Does any of the panel members have a view on that? We have some submissions on what we should do. Clearly, there is a limited amount of public money. There were announcements in the programme for government on capital spend on the prison estate, but we know that HMP Greenock and HMP Dumfries, for example, are old Victorian buildings, and it is claimed that they breach human rights by their physical nature. What do you need the Scottish Government to give you to ensure that the prison estate and the general prison environment are conducive to getting numbers down and criminals back on the straight and narrow? That is an open question for any of the panel. Perhaps you could use the chat function.

Sure. Those are important issues.

Of course.

I have three separate lines of questioning. I will throw them out, and I ask you to try to keep your responses as condensed as possible so that we can get through all three topics. The first topic is the temporary Covid measures that were introduced by Government. We all appreciate and understand that they were a reaction to the circumstance that we were in, which was—to use an overused word—unprecedented.

I have read the submissions, and those from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland raise issues about modifications that you believe should end when the public health emergency ends. The comments relate specifically to virtual hearings and the use of so-called virtual or digital justice. The Faculty of Advocates says:

“Calling virtual hearings ‘digital justice’ is only justified if we continue to prioritise justice ahead of convenience.”

It goes on to say:

“The boldness of the plan ... to double High Court trial frequency is likely to expose further the depleted defence resources.”

What concerns do you have about some of the temporary measures that you think may end up becoming permanent? What are you calling for the Government to cease requiring as soon as is practicably possible? The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might then wish to respond to any criticisms or concerns that are raised.