Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have made some good points. You spoke about how divisive the miners strikes were; however, there were other divisive disputes. If you remember the Wapping dispute, you will remember how divisive that was. As you said, the difference with the miners strikes was the communities. Whole communities were identified as mining communities—for example, the areas that you and I represent have a number of such communities, and there are others across Scotland. The geographical nature of those mining communities is such that the division has carried on for all these years.

On the issue of the pardon, it is important that the committee talks to former miners, as it has done. A number of them had never been in trouble with the law, and they felt a degree of shame about having a conviction. Others did not, because they felt that what they did was justified, which I acknowledge. The impact of a pardon on those who are still with us and know that feeling is quite substantial. Therefore, I think that the pardon will have a big effect.

You are right to say that we have a continuing obligation to the mining communities. On Friday, I attended an event for the Hawkhill community centre, which took place at the centre. Representatives of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust were there, and I spoke to them at length. They still hold activities such as football for youngsters in the communities in Tullibody. We support the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in the former mining communities. The annual grant is £754,000 this year, which has helped to fund grass-roots activity that tackles issues associated with poverty in the communities.

You are right to say that we are still dealing with a long tail of consequences from the dispute and people having lost their jobs. I do not think that the rest of the United Kingdom—I am not sure about Wales—has continued support for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but we have done so and will continue to work with the trust so that the grant addresses the new challenges. If we can concentrate our efforts on regenerating the communities that need it most and working with local people to deliver the change that they want to see, that will perhaps be the best and most effective thing that we can do to help those communities. However, the pardon will also have a tangible effect for many people who were involved.

The answer that I gave to Maggie Chapman still stands. We thought long and hard, as did the independent review group, about who was most directly affected, and we feel that it was the miners themselves. Many other people, including me, got involved in demonstrations at the time, but we do not think that the bill should cover them. Other people, including students, received convictions but, for the reasons that I mentioned, it is important that we restrict the qualifying offences under the bill to the miners who were involved.

You asked about the definition of a miner. That relates to employment in a mine that was owned by the National Coal Board. We considered a number of matters—it is not straightforward—in forming the Government’s position on how a miner should be defined.

We consider that the people who were most adversely affected by the strike and the consequences of strike-related convictions were the miners themselves. Only males were allowed to work underground in the UK coal mining industry in 1984 and 1985, so inevitably the focus in relation to the numbers of people who were arrested, prosecuted and convicted was on male miners. However, the definition has been drafted to recognise that there might have been other people—employed by the coal board or licensed under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—who could meet the pardon criteria. The definition recognises that some surface employees experienced their livelihoods being directly threatened by mine closures and might have participated in or taken action in support of the strike—in fact, I know people who did so who were surface employees.

The policy intention is to capture people who worked underground in a coal mine, at the surface of the coal mine and at the larger workshops located outwith coal mines which were used to maintain and repair mining equipment and machinery. I think that you can draw a line regarding people whose livelihoods were directly related to the mine and under threat because of the strike itself.

The definition would also cover female employees who meet the pardon criteria. However, we are not aware of any robust evidence to suggest that any female was convicted in Scotland for offences related to the strike. That is why we have come to that conclusion. We think that the miners are most directly affected and that to extend the definition further would be problematic, not least because of the poor quality of the evidence—records and so on—that is still available. We think that we have struck the right balance in relation to that. However, as I have said before, we will listen to representations.

You will be aware, not least from some of the points that I made in my opening statement, that there is an on-going review on the impact of the new measure, which is looking at, for example, how the attitude of prisoners has developed. Although, initially, prisoners’ attitude was in some respects hostile, it is now much more supportive. That is explained by the fact that the bullying and the medical fallout from the prevalence of such psychoactive substances in prisons affects prisoners directly. In many cases, they are pleased that the measure in question has been taken, not least because it leaves them less vulnerable to being bullied to provide drugs for others.

We are also talking to prison officers and the trade unions; I am sure that the Prison Service will be able to say more about that. I am not aware of there being a long-stop deadline for a review to take place, but I am more than happy to continue to have a dialogue with other interested parties, including some of those that have raised objections, as the process moves on.

I would be keen to hear from Teresa Medhurst on that question.

I will come to both of those points. It is important that the other questions that you asked are answered, but it may be not a good idea to—[Inaudible.]—publicly. Perhaps I could pass information about some of the issues that have been raised—for example, the number of items of mail that have been intercepted—on to the committee outwith the public sphere. As Teresa Medhurst rightly pointed out, there is a battle of wits between the Prison Service and those who are trying to safeguard prisoners and stop drugs getting into prisons, and those who are trying to find new ways of doing that.

You asked about police follow-up. I mentioned that an MOU between the Prison Service and the police is being discussed to ensure that all those items are uplifted. It is my understanding that there is no recourse in relation to prisoners who, at that point, would not have received any infused materials. That is my understanding, but Teresa Medhurst will know about that better than I do. The MOU will result in all those items being uplifted by the police. How the police will prosecute that is a matter for them. Again, Teresa Medhurst may have more information, because she will be involved in the drawing up of that MOU.

That issue has been raised before; it is valid and is the subject of the discussion on an MOU between the Prison Service and the police. You will know that the Prison Service has no right or powers to confiscate those materials; it has to come down to the police. That is why the MOU, which will result in the uplifting of materials that have been infused with drugs, is being put in place.

On the previous point, which was really important, Mr Greene mentioned that family members might be sending materials. However, serious organised crime might still be behind that, and the family member could be under duress. It is a bit like human trafficking, where we do not want to punish the victims. It is a complicated matter. Mr Greene raised an interesting point about getting a better handle on what the police are able to do once they discern criminal behaviour, and we will follow that up. I am happy to write to the committee on both the matters that he raised.

Thank you, convener. I wish the committee a happy new year.

The purpose of the Scottish statutory instrument is to add psychoactive substances, as defined in section 2 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, to the list of prohibited articles in the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, and to provide prison governors with powers that will enable them to mitigate the risk of illicit substances that are being introduced through general correspondence that is sent to prisoners via the mail system across the prison estate.

Prohibited articles are items that prisoners are not allowed to possess in prison, and currently include controlled drugs, alcohol, offensive weapons and other items. The amendments also provide prison officers and employees with powers that will allow them to photocopy a prisoner’s general correspondence, provide the prisoner with a photocopy of that correspondence and retain the original correspondence for return to the prisoner on their release. Prison staff will also be provided with the power to test general correspondence for the purposes of investigating whether it contains a prohibited article.

The use of psychoactive substances in prisons across the United Kingdom is escalating. The Scottish Prison Service has been working tirelessly to adapt security measures to prevent, detect and deter the introduction of contraband to the estate. However, the use of such substances is a complex and multifaceted problem in our society, and there is no simple answer to the issue of its impact in the criminal justice system.

During 2021, five confirmed deaths in SPS custody have been linked to suspected drug overdose involving the psychoactive substance etizolam, an illicit class C drug that can be infused into paper, card and clothing. Intelligence from the SPS also indicated that there has been an escalation in the number of emergency drug-related escorts to hospital and incidents of prisoners being suspected to be under the influence of drugs. Members will be aware of the emerging debates on the issue, and that Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has been calling for the introduction of the measure that we are discussing today.

I am also aware that Families Outside, which works with children and families who are affected by imprisonment in Scotland, has written to the committee to note its support for the proposals. On the other hand, I know that concerns have been raised by stakeholders regarding prisoners’ human rights.

Many operational decisions in our prisons require a rather delicate balance to be struck to address a range of competing rights but, ultimately, the SPS must do all that it can to protect and ensure the health and safety of its staff and people in its care.

The instrument that is before you today is considered essential to mitigate the threat of significant harm to prisoners and staff that might be caused by further increases in the volumes of psychoactive substances entering the prison estate. The power that is set out in the instrument will help prison officers to prevent the entry of illicit substances into prisons and reduce the availability of those substances to prisoners. That can only help to reduce the risk that those substances present to prisons, prisoners and prison staff.

We considered options that would make the measure less intrusive, such as handing mail that had not tested positive for illicit substances to prisoners while they are in custody, but we are responding to an ever-developing threat, with new substances created that we cannot detect. Other options would not have been as effective in stopping that route into prisons for those substances. We acknowledge that there might be an impact on prisoners as a result of the instrument and its implementation, but they will continue to receive the substance of their correspondence, and they will be offered the choice of having the photocopied correspondence destroyed or retained, so that they can receive clean originals on release.

The amendments will also affect only general correspondence sent to prisoners, not confidential correspondence, such as privileged correspondence, court correspondence and medical correspondence, all of which are already protected under rule 56 of the prison rules.

The impact of not doing anything would be further disorder, illness and potential risk to life in prisons. I think that the measure strikes a fair balance between prisoners’ rights and the security and good order of prisons, which is also an essential factor in upholding prisoners’ rights in general.

The instrument has been in force since 13 December 2021, and I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed by members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding the breach of the 28-day laying period.

In normal circumstances, negative SSIs require to be laid before the Parliament for at least 28 days before they come into force. However, as outlined to the Presiding Officer by the head of the SPS, there was a concern that, in the run-up to the festive period, when the volume of mail increases, the SPS would in all probability have experienced a great escalation in the volume of psychoactive substances being sent into prisons via general correspondence with prisoners. The instrument was laid in November after careful consideration by the SPS and escalating concerns following the incidents at HMP Shotts and HMP Addiewell involving illicit substances. It was considered critical that the process be put in place quickly, and before mid-January 2022, which is when the SSI would have come into force if laid before Parliament in accordance with the 28-day rule.

The SPS will also commit to doing everything possible to mitigate any detrimental consequences that impact on the receipt of special mail such as photographs and occasion cards. Where possible, governors have been asked to give consideration in the first instance to testing all cards and photographs using the Rapiscan Itemiser drug-detection machine to allow the issuing of the original copies.

It is recognised that the maintenance of personal connections and family contact are essential to the lives of people in SPS care and, of course, their families. The SPS has implemented a number of measures to support that, including access to physical and virtual visits, access to communal and in-cell telephones and access to the Email a Prisoner and Prison Voicemail schemes.

The SSI has been in force for about four weeks, and there has been support for the change from the prison population to date. Early indications are that there has been a significant decrease in recorded drug-taking incidents and drug-related emergency escorts in the month of December 2021, compared with the previous two months. There were 248 drug-taking incidents in October, 305 in November and 131 in December; and there were 39 drug-related emergency escorts for the month of October, 37 in November and 15 in December. The SPS will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the policy across the estate.

The SPS and Police Scotland are reviewing the current memorandum of understanding concerning the management of illicit substances found in prisons, including the investigation, collection and destruction of such substances. A further meeting to discuss the MOU is planned for mid-January. In the meantime, Police Scotland has agreed to uplift all items suspected to be contaminated with illicit substances. I know that that was a concern that was raised by prison officers.

The instrument is, of course, only one of a range of measures and support that is required. There was a co-ordinated effort by the SPS, the national health service, Police Scotland and other criminal justice partners to limit the supply of drugs, including psychoactive substances inside and outside prisons, and the provision of support and treatment will be required. It is, therefore, crucial that our approach to tackling the problem concerns a balance between security and deterrence on the one hand, and also recovery and support on the other.

I am aware that there is a range of views among members on the issue, and I welcome this opportunity to answer members’ questions.

It would be better if Teresa Medhurst answered that, as she has a much better grasp of exactly where we are on that. The member raises an interesting point and she knows the challenges that we have had on the issue. Teresa will have the up-to-date position.

My response to the question about a review was that we have not planned that, but there is a kind of on-going review. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to commit to providing an update to the committee in whatever timescale you think would be appropriate. As has been said, we are only four weeks into the system. After a three-month period, we will have a better idea of how things are panning out, so that might be a good point at which to provide an update to the committee. That might include elements of a review but, in any event, it would be good to update the committee on progress.

I will try to respond, but Teresa Medhurst will have more of the detail.

The measure applies to general correspondence, but not all correspondence is opened, and there are different practices in different prisons. The approach might be targeted or it might be random, but not all correspondence is opened. I mentioned the exemptions, such as legally privileged information. I am aware that legally or medically privileged information can present a route to people trying to circumvent the system, so measures are taken to try to avoid that. Interestingly, we are aware of correspondence that purports to relate to the child abuse inquiry going to prisoners but which is nothing of the kind—it is a means to try to get drugs into the prison estate.

It is a difficult issue to deal with. I am sure that Teresa will not want to be too explicit about the ways in which we try to ensure that drugs do not get into the estate. However, not all correspondence is opened. We will look at personal correspondence, including correspondence from children, which is perhaps one of the most sensitive areas in relation to the issue. We have taken measures that are proportionate. We will ensure that prisoners get the original correspondence, where that is possible. Not all correspondence is opened. The approach is targeted or random, and I believe that it is proportionate.

Teresa might want to come in on that.

Again, Teresa Medhurst is best placed to answer that. There has been increased detection in that respect, so the system seems to be working well. Perhaps Teresa can give more information.