Seòmar agus comataidhean

Giving the Parole Board the powers to administer it might be a way to allow that.

I have a question about the victim surcharge fund, which is also for Kate Wallace. The Scottish National Party’s 2016 manifesto pledged that more than £1 million a year would be paid out through that fund. It took until 2019 to set it up. Earlier this year, it paid out in the region of £157,000. Your organisation received some of that money for your own victims fund, which, in turn, paid out £285,000. In your submission, you cited “an unprecedented demand” for that fund. Some of the money in your fund came from charitable donations. Is it the case that charity is being left to pay for an SNP manifesto pledge? Is that a disincentive for the Government to finally get the £1 million-a-year fund up and running?

I understand that Covid has affected that, as it has affected just about everything else, but have you had any indication of the funding that you will get in future years? Has there been any projection of what you might expect?

I could redirect the question to Teresa Medhurst.

Yes—thank you.

I want to ask Kate Wallace from Victim Support Scotland about the victim notification scheme. Your submission is similarly critical of it, Kate. You have described it as “not fit for purpose.” You have also pointed out that the Scottish Government has not given any specific commitment to do anything about it in the current programme for government. Why do you think that the Scottish Government does not share your sense of urgency? What should be done to fix the scheme?

That is good to know.

There is perhaps a perception that anonymous middle-class professionals such as you and I decide the fate of dangerous individuals and whether they are returned to the type of communities that we tend not to live in. If sentencing is, quite rightly, transparent, why is there no transparency on the time that is served? Has the Parole Board had any discussion with the Scottish Government about moving in that direction?

On that issue, it is worth pointing out that vulnerable prisoners are often targeted by the 600 prisoners who are marked as being members of organised crime groups.

Coming back to the security issues that you referred to in response to my colleague Jamie Greene, I spoke to Peter Smith about some of the stuff that was not broadcast. He told me that prisoners are now smuggling in seals that allow them to tamper with and reseal phones so that the staff who inspect them have no way of knowing what has happened. Is there any way in which you can get to the bottom of that? Can you quantify how many phones have been compromised?

I have a question for Teresa Medhurst. This week, ITV News has had a series of reports from Barlinnie prison. I will ask more about that later, but the Howard League Scotland’s submission to the committee says that the throughcare support officer initiative has not been reinstated and describes that as

“an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Scottish Government”.

One Barlinnie officer talked proudly and passionately about the work that he does to liaise with prisoners once they have left prison and how beneficial that can be. Why is there such a gap between the rhetoric from the Scottish Government and the reality? Do you know whether the scheme will be reinstated?

This is another question for Teresa Medhurst.

We all understand the reasons for introducing mobile phones and the incredible logistical challenge of doing so at pace. However, in the ITV news report, one prison officer said that those supposedly tamper-proof devices were hacked “within hours” of their arrival at Barlinnie.

Did you or any of your staff raise the issue with the Scottish Government? If so, what consideration was given to disclosing these serious problems to Parliament and/or the public?