Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have three brief points to make, the first of which is in relation to the evidence that we took last week. I felt that, at the end of that session, we were none the wiser as to the volume of mail that is being intercepted. A number of points that were raised, which are primarily around the process of mail interception, would merit being followed up, perhaps in writing, with the Scottish Prison Service or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans.

I think that there might have been some miscommunication to or confusion in the wider public sphere around what mail is being stopped and not passed to prisoners, what mail is being photocopied and what mail is or is not being read. The same applies to the process, where that takes place and who does that.

Having transparency on that issue would perhaps help and offer reassurance to the families of those in prison, as well as those who might not be fully aware of what the Scottish statutory instrument means and does in real life.

I appreciate that there could be operational reasons why some information might be sensitive to share in public, which I think that the cabinet secretary hinted at last week. I am content with that if that were to be the case, and I understand the reasons for it, but perhaps that information could be shared confidentially with committee members, as is the norm with such information.

My second point is an issue that I raised last week. It is not just physical mail, including cards, that is soaked in illicit substances. We know that items are brought into prison in other ways. Now that serious organised criminal gangs can no longer rely on traditional forms of smuggling drugs into prison via paper, how else will the drugs get in? It would be naive to think that that would simply stop altogether.

We know that, for example, items of clothing or other parcels that have been sent to prisoners have been pre-soaked in drugs in the past. We also know that we are starting to see a resurgence in methods—the old-fashioned ways, if you like—of getting illicit substances over the perimeter fence. I am keen for the Government and the SPS to keep us posted on that.

My final point is an issue that I tried to raise last week but was unable to because we ran out of time. It relates to digital communication and what alternatives are being offered, such as email systems. I do not mean mobile telephony; I am talking about fixed devices or other forms of electronic communication, which allow families to privately, directly, confidentially, quickly and easily communicate with their loved ones in prisons. We did not get a chance to talk about that in great detail. I would appreciate getting an update on those issues, too.

My next question is for the cabinet secretary. It is clear that serious organised criminal gangs are the primary drivers of drugs getting into prisons to feed addiction and to feed their lucrative market. You said that confiscated mail would be passed to the police if there was a suspicion of drugs. Are the police following that up? Are you aware of any criminality taking place? Has anyone been prosecuted for posting mail that is soaked in drugs? Is there any recourse when it comes to prisoners who receive the mail? Does it affect parole conditions or their behaviour card, for example?

In the interests of time, my questions will probably be quite rapid-fire ones. My first question is to Ms Medhurst. Can you give us an indication of what percentage or proportion of original mail has been photocopied and passed to prisoners as photocopied versus the percentage or proportion of mail that has been given to prisoners directly in its original form? As you have said, it is quite difficult to spot original mail that has been soaked in drugs.

Okay. Thank you.

I come to my second rapid-fire question. It is not just mail that contains drugs; I am aware from speaking to prison officers that clothes are often soaked in drugs. Obviously, that is very difficult to deal with. How on earth are you going to manage the incidence of that?

What I am getting at is that, if so much mail has been posted, that is clearly a misuse of drugs. Those are classified drugs. Someone is posting them, so criminal behaviour is taking place somewhere in society but there does not seem to be a huge amount of follow-up or any prosecution. If people were being prosecuted for sending drugs, it might act as a disincentive for others in the future.

That might also be helpful, but I am looking for the figures since the implementation of the new policy. What percentage of all the mail that comes in is currently being photocopied?

Thank you for that. However, I presume that, if something is clearly identifiable as being from a family member, because it includes a message such as “Dear son”, “Dear brother” or “Dear Dad”, it is obvious where the mail originates from and, if it contains drugs, there is clearly an issue there. Perhaps, with some input from the police, the cabinet secretary could write to us on that.

My last question is in response to the cabinet secretary’s opening statement, in which I believe that he said that original items will be returned to prisoners on their release. This might be an obvious question, but could mail that is still soaked in drugs be returned to prisoners on their release? Clearly, we want those prisoners to go back into society drug-free and to mitigate any potential for them to return to misuse or addiction. Handing them back drugs seems a sure-fire way to send them down the spiral of ending up back in prison.

I appreciate that. If etizolam can be sent in the post, the big issues are about what else can be sent and how else it can be sent. People clearly still want to get drugs into prisons, and some prisoners will still want drugs to get in as well, so the really big question is, “What next?”

Thank you. Convener, could I respond to what we have just heard?

I think that he has dropped off the call. I appreciate your response. I have some other questions but I am happy to reserve them for later in the meeting.