Seòmar agus comataidhean

On what we are doing, the committee did an investigation into that in 2018. Since then, we have put another £117 million into community justice services each year, plus a further £550,000 to incentivise bail supervision services—bail obviously being the flip side of remand. We have also put in another £1.5 million for bail support for women each year.

I reiterate the important point that this is not just about legislation. I think—I imagine that the committee will know this better than I do—that there is also cultural adaptation, as well the legislation, that we have to consider.

That is exactly right. The other side to that is the people on the other side of the video camera—the families who can make contact online who would find it difficult otherwise, either because of the need to travel or because Covid is a barrier. It is not just about the prisoner. The response that you will sometimes get is that it is soft justice for a prisoner to give them a phone or to have these televisual conversations, but there is the other side of it as well. Going back to the point that was made previously about remand, it is about the effect on not just the individual who is on remand but their family, so your point is correct. You are right that that is, in part, a response to Covid, but we should look at these things.

Prison officers will tell you that there are benefits to that. There are also dangers around phones and other information technology equipment, with regard to maintaining the proper regime in prisons. Being aware of the dangers is important, but we should look at how we can do that. Thinking on the hoof, why should we not look at educational incentives being delivered in that way as well? That could be done more safely than might otherwise be the case and, I imagine, it would be possible to get more specialist educational opportunities for prisoners if they could do such things remotely. We should look at some of these innovations for the longer term.

What is important is that there was a decision for Parliament to take—it has taken it not once but twice—and Parliament is continually notified by the Government on the situation. That is the democratic check that we have. The decisions have tended to be on the basis of a consensus among the parties in the Parliament, at least up until now.

The only thing that we are still looking for is for that code of conduct to be finalised.

That is a very good question and there is a lot to it. First, on the question as to what elements have given cause for concern among the legal profession, what springs to mind is the concern of the Faculty of Advocates about the continuing use of remote juries. The faculty has been very supportive of the use of remote juries and has seen real benefits from it, but I acknowledge that there are some concerns in the faculty about that being carried too far into the future if it is not required given the Covid situation.

On the issue of what innovations will remain, remote juries are something that we will consider, and we will also consider the Lord Advocate’s views on that. The remote balloting of juries has been of great benefit. It has been necessary because of the Covid pandemic, but it might be useful in future, too. We might want to keep in mind the potential use of remote juries in exceptional cases—for example, in serious organised crime cases where there might be an issue of jury tampering.

Mr Greene is right to say that we cannot just expand everything to try to deal with the issue. The committee heard from the Lord President, who said exactly that: we cannot just increase the scale of the system and there are other things that need to be done. An example might be the pre-recording of evidence, which has been beneficial for many reasons and not just in relation to Covid. The ability for people who might be vulnerable for different reasons to give evidence in much more relaxed surroundings started very recently and I think that it will be a long-term innovation.

Beyond that, it is clear that we cannot say that what we have done in response to the pandemic with the £50 million that we have put into the system this year is sufficient. We understand that it is not the end of the story and more investment has to happen. Members will know that the publicly acknowledged times for getting trials back up to where they were before are 2024 for summary trials and 2025 for solemn cases. If there is anything that we can do to advance that, we will try to do it.

Apart from with some of the innovations that we have made, we are in no different a position from the other jurisdictions that have had to wrestle with the problems that the pandemic has created. Neil Rennick might have something to add on that.

You anticipated my response, convener. As Ms McNeill said, there are on-going legal proceedings. The more general point that was raised starts to get us back on to that, too, so those questions are best put to the Lord Advocate, because she has responsibility for the Crown Office and what it has done. I was not in my current role when those things occurred. I am afraid that those questions would best be put directly to the Lord Advocate to see whether she is able to answer them. I do not want to comment beyond that, for the reasons that I have given.

Thank you for the question. At the start of it, you mentioned the extent to which access to such courses or activities has been undermined by Covid, and there is no doubt that that has been the case.

Having said that, I had a very good discussion with the Prison Officers Association Scotland, whose representatives said that they felt that, during the pandemic, partly because of its general impact on prisons and activities in them, they had been able to spend more time with prisoners. They felt that that was a useful period of learning for them—there were more one-to-one discussions.

You will know about some other things that we have done—for example, with phones in cells, which have helped during an extraordinary situation. Gyms and other facilities are now open. Although they are still restricted in some ways, they were not open at the time, so there was a big reduction in on-going activities. That was necessary and will continue to happen. For example, we have had recent outbreaks at HMP Perth and HMP Dumfries, which will mean restrictions on communal activities that may include some that you have mentioned.

In general, you are absolutely right. For me, in coming to this, we have to make use of the time that is spent in prison and see how much more effectively it can be used. Prison is an expensive option. It costs £40,000 a year to house a prisoner, and I think that society wants to have a return on that investment. One such return is taking somebody out of society who is a danger to it—I understand that—and there is also the element of punishment, which is reflected in the sentence. However, beyond that, rehabilitation has to be in everyone’s interests, because, in turn, that will lead to lower levels of recidivism and of crime. I think that I am right in saying that we are now seeing those at record low levels. Society wants to see more and more of that.

Around 11.9 per cent of people in Scotland have experienced crime of some description, compared with around 13.5 per cent across the rest of the UK, but that figure is still too high: that is 11 people in 100 experiencing crime. The object of rehabilitation in prison—albeit that sometimes prison is not the best setting in which to achieve it—has to be a serious one. At the start of my term as cabinet secretary, I want to look very profoundly at how we can make sure that that happens.

I know that there are constraints—for example on cash, although we are replacing HMP Barlinnie and HMP Highland and we are doing stuff in the women’s estate. There are physical and monetary constraints on what we can do. However, within those constraints, I want to see how we can make sure of that rehabilitation.

In a previous job, in education, 11 or 12 years ago, I was quite concerned about the number of prisoners whose learning issues—even dyslexia—were undiagnosed when they were at school. It may be that a young person, having had undiagnosed dyslexia, has fallen behind at school, and all sorts of other things might come after that. We might be able to go back to somebody in prison and do the required work, explaining that they had dyslexia as a child, that it gave them problems with reading or writing and that we might now be able to look at how we can remedy that. I think that there is more to be done on the availability of rehabilitative and educational opportunities and on the willingness of prisoners to take up those opportunities, and I concede that those areas have been impacted by the changes that we have had to make due to Covid.

Again, Neil Rennick may have something to add.

Rapiscan is not very good for psychoactive substances, as you will know, and prescription drugs are also an issue. I think that the new machine that is being talked about—that is all I can call it until I get the name of it—is more extensive than that, but it requires a specific licence from the Home Office, so we are seeking that. I think that the Scottish Prison Service is involved in that, and it is not an inexpensive piece of kit.

We do recognise that point but, to go back to one part of your question, if people are presenting with drug addiction issues when they come into the system, that can sometimes be through acquisitive crime to service that drug habit. Somebody has an addiction, and that causes criminal activity. It goes back to Pauline McNeill’s point: we have to try to be radical about how we deal with that if we are to make an impact. To underline the concern that you have expressed, Mr Greene, if somebody comes into the prison and does not have an addiction issue but they go out with one, that is nothing that we want to see.

It is a matter of concern. It is hard to tell what the exact prevalence is, for pretty obvious reasons, I would have thought, but the issue is giving concern to the Prison Service—specifically, from my discussions with the Prison Service and prison officers, when it comes to psychoactive substances. These are not exactly their words, but they will say that, for more traditional drugs, they have a much more straightforward ability to deal with a prisoner. If prisoners take certain drugs, they become drowsy or inactive, sometimes to the detriment of their health in a serious way, whereas psychoactive substances present a whole different set of challenges, and officers are very concerned about that. We are indeed very concerned, and we are looking at new ways to deal with the issue—and, as Pauline McNeill says, we should be doing that.

You have spoken about being frank and talking about the elephant in the room. Let us just see how it plays out. If we come forward with some radical ideas, what level of support will we get to pursue them if we want to seriously deal with the issue, as I certainly do?

During the course of the past hour and a half, you have heard about a number of things that we intend to take forward to address that. That includes doing more on mental health support in prisons and on how entrance into the custody system is triaged, and understanding what is driving people when they come in. You heard a pretty extensive response from the minister about how we are trying to deal with some of the issues concerning women in custody. We have tried to address those issues.

On the things that you have mentioned, which I just discussed beforehand, such as the possibility of somebody going into a prison without an addiction and coming out with one, that horrifies society and it horrifies me. That is not distinctive to this jurisdiction; it happens across the board. Prison governors in England and Wales have stated that it is not possible to have a drug-free prison. I would like to test that to see to what extent it can be achieved. If you have any ideas about how that could be achieved, I would be more than happy to listen. I extend that offer to the committee and everyone else.

In the meantime, we are seeking to deal with the issue through the new equipment that I have mentioned, training for prison officers, which, I concede, has been limited through the pandemic, and other changes to the prison system. We should not accept the presence of drugs in prison as inevitable.

On prisoner safety, the vast majority of prisoners are able to serve their time in relative safety. We already mentioned in response to Mr Findlay’s questions the danger that is represented by criminals who are incarcerated because of violent crime and who are continually willing to perpetrate violent crime. That represents a risk; prison is not a risk-free environment and I am not trying to pretend that it is. It is our job to minimise that risk.

First, I do think that it is an area of concern—I would say that immediately. The extent to which it might be rising or otherwise is of course hard to tell, because the nature of it is secretive: people try to keep it hidden. The fact that we and the Prison Service recognise it as a problem is accepted, I think. Also—and there is a point to saying this—that is no different from other jurisdictions, as I am sure you will know and accept.

The UK Government has undertaken, or authorised, some new equipment in relation to that, but only for certain bodies. Again, it would be useful to get some more background information from the officials—if we could get the name of the particular device. We are looking to get authorisation from the—[Interruption.] No, I do not think it was that one; I think we currently have those. I think it is a new one.