Seòmar agus comataidhean

I largely agree with Russell Findlay’s comments. We need to take proportionate action to tackle the scourge of drugs in our prisons, and I am content that the regulations are necessary.

As other members did, I asked the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, for reassurances in relation to prisoners who might innocently get caught up in what is happening. I felt satisfied that prisoners would be present if any suspect mail went through the process. That gave me some reassurance.

I think that it is useful to put on the record that the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation has written to the committee to express concerns. It acts on behalf of convicted prisoners when it feels that there is a credible case that there has been a miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that correspondence.

I for one will be listening out and monitoring the impact of the regulations, to make sure that they are proportionate.

One of the concerns that Families Outside raises is that families of prisoners might stop writing to them because of a fear that something untoward would happen to their innocently sent correspondence, such as birthday cards.

For those reasons, I think that the committee should keep an eye on the regulations.

I will start with the point that Russell Findlay made about fatal accident inquiries. There is a lot to welcome, but I have a few points that need further investigation or amplification.

I, too, am surprised that the cabinet secretary thinks that the current system for deaths in custody represents the right model for the future, given the extraordinary length of time that families are waiting. A big piece of work by the Scottish Government is needed, along with some investment.

I do not fully understand the relationship between the response and the Scottish Government’s recent statement that deaths in custody will be investigated independently. We heard that powers will be given to those who are tasked with that to ensure that they can get on with the job of getting to the bottom of deaths in custody with no barriers and with unfettered access. We have had an extraordinary number of deaths in custody, and a lot of families are really concerned about the length of time that it takes to investigate them. I share Russell Findlay’s view that there seems to be a bit of complacency on the issue. I would have thought that there needs to be some investment attached to the measures.

My second point relates to the implementation of measures in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, such as victims being offered support when making a statement. It seems to be a theme for the committee to explore whether there should be more formal support for victims in the system, either through being legally represented or in other ways. We need further investigation into that.

Finally, the Government has an excellent and comprehensive programme on violence against women and girls. I would like to see investment to ensure that the action plan is sustainable and that we make achievements along the way. I have made the point in Parliament a few times that there are cross-cutting issues between the justice portfolio and, for example, the equalities portfolio in relation to attitudes to violence against women and girls. We have seen high levels of sexual harassment of girls at a very young age. In some of our private sessions, we have discussed concerns about rape culture and other social issues. I would like cross-cutting investment between the justice department and other departments that have an obvious interest in that matter.

It is really helpful to know that. Families Outside had asked about that issue, because the rules currently say that the prisoner “may” be asked to be present.

That being the case, if a complaint was made that correspondence had been read, it is not likely to have happened at that point, because the prisoner would have been present. That would have happened afterwards. Are you saying that, if a prisoner found out that their mail had been read or confidentiality had been breached, that would be dealt with by them making a formal complaint about it?

I put the question to you in order to understand the process. From what you are saying, it is quite robust, which has given me some satisfaction.

I have no further questions, convener.

Good morning. I totally accept the necessity for the Government to move ahead. I want to probe as much as I can into the detail of how the instrument will operate. Under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, there is a right to privacy and family life, especially for prisoners who are not involved in drugs. That is where I am going with this. Although Families Outside supports the statutory instrument, it has expressed a number of concerns and says that there is a concern that families might opt not to send correspondence, which could interfere with family relationships.

Teresa Medhurst has said that staff are not allowed to read letters. How do you propose to prevent that and ensure that families who are just keeping in touch with their loved ones in prison and are not involved in drugs have confidence in the system?

Thank you for that, but I do not want it to get to the stage where people have to complain. Is there a safeguard within the operating process that you can tell the committee about? The measures have been in place for only four weeks. What does the Prison Service have in place by way of a safeguard so that Families Outside and anyone else can be reassured? You said that you will “monitor” the situation, but what does that mean? Are you just going to wait until a complaint is made?

Today’s meeting is the first opportunity that the committee has had to drill down on the matter. I do not think that any of us is opposed to the instrument that we are considering, but we have a responsibility to raise such questions to make sure that, as the cabinet secretary said, the balance is right. I would like to know specifically what safeguard there is in the process.

Does that mean that the prisoner is present when a test is carried out?

I imagine that one of the key issues with prerecorded evidence—forgive me if I have not understood the process—concerns the cross-examination of the complainer in court. How is that done? I imagine that the lawyer for the person who is standing trial would want to put questions to the complainer. Is that done beforehand or in court? It would be helpful to know that.

Would you be concerned about that? It is certainly a concern that I have, and I would like to hear any answers that you have in that regard.

Thank you.

There has been a suggestion that a single point of contact for complainers might reduce the scope for complaints about communication—I think that Lady Dorrian said that in her report. Is that practical? What would be the relationship between that point of contact and Victim Support Scotland?

I have listened to the evidence, and I will not go through all the testimony again, but I understand that there have been a lot of communication failures. A single point of contact could be a way of solving that. Do you think that it is practical to bring that in, and who would do it? I thought that Victim Support Scotland already did that, but maybe it does not have the capacity to contact the police and the Crown. A complainer cannot just pick up the phone and ask the fiscal what is going on; they probably would not even know where to find the number. Somebody has to do that for them. I just wonder who you think should do it and whether it would be practical.