Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
- Photocopying of Prisoners’ Mail
Photocopying of Prisoners’ Mail
Our next item of business is consideration of correspondence on photocopying of prisoners’ mail. I refer members to paper 4. Members will recall that in January we considered a statutory instrument to change prison rules to allow for photocopying of prisoners’ mail in order to mitigate the risk of illicit substances being introduced via the mail system. We subsequently wrote to Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service requesting additional information. Responses have been received and have been circulated with this week’s committee papers.
The committee is invited to consider what, if any, follow-up action is required. Members will recall that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Keith Brown, indicated that he would update the committee on on-going review of the regulations after three months.
I am happy to hear members’ views on the matter.
The letter from the police is reassuring, because it answers the unanswered question about stuff that might be contaminated being returned to prisoners. The letter clearly says that that will no longer happen. We cannot measure much until we hear back from the cabinet secretary after three months, but the memorandum of understanding is unclear about when the provision was introduced—there is no date or Crown signatory. It is probably worth asking the Crown whether it ever signed it, and if so, when. I find it slightly odd that even if it did sign the MOU, it is at least nine years old, and in that time we have seen the rise in use of psychoactive substances, we have seen drones come along and we have seen the impregnation of mail with substances. The landscape has changed and the document predates all that stuff. Was the MOU implemented, and if so, why has it not been looked at for the best part of a decade?
I am happy with what has been said. We need to bring in the cabinet secretary for his update after three months of the provision’s being in place. I am happy with that timescale.
12:30
On the correspondence from the SPS in response to our questions, my understanding is that the service gave us figures only for the four weeks following the changes to the rules on 13 December. That is only one month of data, so we should request continued updates. Also, because that was the Christmas period, there would have been abnormal volumes of mail throughout the month.
It is notable that 48 per cent of correspondence was photocopied and passed on. I do not know whether that is good or bad. I guess that some people understood that all mail would be photocopied and others thought that it would be selected depending on the evaluation of risk. It is hard to gauge whether the figure is good, bad or indifferent, so it would be helpful to have some context.
The more interesting figure is on how many pieces of mail tested positive. Because 12 per cent of mail that went through the Rapiscan machine tested positive, it sounds as though it would be a wise move on our part to push for photocopying. I would be keen, as we move forward, to see what effect that has on the number of items that test positive over the months, and whether the number goes down as people reduce the risk that they take in sending substances through the mail.
Equally, it would be naive to think that a reduction means that drugs are being eliminated from prisons. Will there be a change in the type of drugs that get into prison or the methods of getting them there? It is probably too early to say, and I appreciate that the Government needs more time, but when we hear from the Government—perhaps before the summer recess—it would be interesting to hear whether people in the illicit sector have found new and innovative ways of getting drugs into prisons, and to hear what those drugs are. As we know, methods and products have changed over the years. It is fair to say that that will continue to be the case, so we should keep a watching eye on that.
[Inaudible.]—with reviewing the rules again after three months to get a full idea of the impact that the change has had. I am not sure whether it has been addressed, but we discussed delivery of personal items, notwithstanding mail being photocopied. I would like to know whether there has been a review of that and whether there is any suggestion that drugs are getting into prisons via footwear, for example. However, I am comfortable with a review after three months.
I am happy with a review in three months.
Same here.
And here.
We agree that the direction of travel looks broadly positive, but that it is too early to evaluate the success or otherwise of the change to the rules. We can follow up with Police Scotland, in writing, the issue about the MOU. Fulton MacGregor mentioned bringing the cabinet secretary back, which we will do in three months, as he offered and we agreed. Continued monitoring is needed, as is evaluation of how the process is working. Colette Stevenson raised an interesting point about personal items.
It seems that we agree that the change has been a positive development and a positive piece of work. If members are happy with that, our clerks can pick up the actions.
That concludes the public part of the meeting.
12:34 Meeting continued in private until 13:08.