Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill
Let us move on. I have lost my place. [Interruption.] That was a tactical switching off of the microphone, but it was nothing in private. In case anyone thinks that anything sinister was going on, I was just mumbling to myself.
We move to item 4. In paper 6, we are asked to consider our approach to the legislative consent memorandum on the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill. The aim of the bill is to authorise interference with mobile phone signals in Scottish prisons and young offenders institutions.
There are some options on page 3 of the clerk’s paper. I understand that there would be time to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—perhaps on 30 October after he has given evidence on the budget—and to seek some written evidence in the meantime, if members are keen to do that.
I ask for members’ comments.
I would like some clarification on what would be considered to be “disproportionate interference”, which is mentioned in paragraph 3 on page 1 of the clerk’s paper. I absolutely see the need for the bill, but I want some clarification on the implications for the emergency services outwith the walls of the prison.
I also thought that the phrase
“protection of health and morals”
was fascinating.
I note my surprise that, although the provision or use of communication equipment in a prison is a criminal offence for most people, it is simply a disciplinary offence for prisoners. That is peculiar.
On paragraph 15 in the draft legislative consent memorandum, I am surprised that there has been no formal consultation at United Kingdom level.
Paragraph 16 of the draft LCM seems to make contradictory statements. It states:
“The Bill will impose no financial obligations on the public sector.”
However, the final sentence states:
“There will be financial costs in the procurement of signal interference equipment.”
I think that there is a contradiction there.
It would be good to get clarification on the points that John Finnie raises.
I have read the paper, but it is not clear to me who will oversee the arrangements—I hope that I have not missed that—in terms of appeals and ensuring that the processes are properly adhered to. In other circumstances, inspectorates come in annually to check that such powers are operated appropriately and in the spirit of the legislation, but I see no mention of that in the paper. I hope that we can get information on how the arrangements will operate.
I entirely agree with John Finnie, who raised a point about the term “disproportionate interference”, and Graeme Pearson. I have a point about paragraph 4 on page 1 of the clerk’s paper, which talks about the bill providing for
“the retention and disclosure of information obtained through interference”,
and requiring that
“this information must be destroyed after three months”.
I am concerned about that. We need to write to the various operators to get their views on that. My concern is about where the information is obtained. Is it just from the emergency services, or is it from houses and people who live round about? I would like answers to those questions. Perhaps I am jumping the gun a bit, but to get answers we need to write to the various operators and hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I have concerns about the issues that are raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the clerk’s paper.
It would be useful for a draft letter raising all those points to be circulated to send to the cabinet secretary. I am mindful of the timetable. Next week, we will decide whether to take evidence and discuss possible witnesses. By then, our letter will have gone to the cabinet secretary to alert him. In any event, I think that we will want to hear from him on 30 October, as he will be here then anyway. Is that all right?
Members indicated agreement.
That will give him advance notice. In the meantime, we can discuss next week the interesting points that have been raised. There are also European convention on human rights issues with regard to surveillance.
We now move on to agenda item 5, on our work programme, which we will discuss in private session.
10:38
Meeting continued in private until 12:37.