Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to make a point of clarification on the last point that my friend and colleague Richard Leonard made. I put on the record my thanks to him for all that he has done for mining communities. I know that he is a big supporter of those communities. However, he said that other members who have talked about the subject, one of whom is me, are not in favour of compensation.

I want to make it clear for any miners or people from mining communities who are watching that I am very much in favour of compensation. However, having heard the evidence from miners and others, and from the cabinet secretary, I am now convinced that the bill is not the best place for a compensation scheme. It would not suit the purpose of the bill. In our private evidence session, we heard from miners that they are very much aware of and content with the purpose and scope of the bill. It would not be fair to say that I am not in favour of a compensation scheme. I just do not think that it should be in the bill.

I back what Rona Mackay has said and what you have said, convener. We should keep the petition open at this time. As a member of the Justice Committee in the previous parliamentary session, I know that the petition came up regularly and that we had similar discussions to the one that we are having today.

I wonder whether it would be worth the committee writing to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its current view of the situation, given what has been requested. As for the decision to be taken today, I am minded to keep the petition open.

I am happy with those responses, convener.

I am very impressed with the quality of the responses so far. It has been a really good meeting and I thank the witnesses for that. I have a question for the panel about tax policy. How could the Scottish Government use tax policy to meet human rights and equalities obligations?

I broadly agree with what others members have said. Last week’s evidence session was really useful. It is good to hear that the measures have come in, and there seems to be initial evidence of early success.

We all want to ensure that drugs do not get into prisons. Russell Findlay articulated earlier the consequences of drugs getting into prison not only for the individuals in prison, but for the health service at this time. If a measure is seen to be making progress in that area, it is incumbent on us to support it.

I, too, had concerns about the regulations. I probably had more concerns before last week’s evidence session, but I felt reassured listening to the cabinet secretary and Teresa Medhurst’s comments about how some of the mail would be dealt with. The Scottish Prison Service gave quite a clear indication that private mail cannot be read as such and that safeguards are in place.

Nonetheless, we are early on in the process. The regulations are probably broad enough to allow for the measures to be implemented in different ways across the sector. For that reason, I would quite like to review the regulations, too.

I am very happy to support the regulations at this point, as they seem to be making a difference.

My next question might seem to run counter to my previous one. I asked for reassurances that prisoners’ personal mail is not being read. On the other side of that, if you like, what measures are in place for officers who perhaps inadvertently see something in mail—perhaps they read part of it—that they have concerns about, such as something of a child protection nature? Are they allowed to go to their line manager without any fear of being told, “Well, you must have read that mail to know that”?

I know that that kind of runs counter to my previous question, but a picture could come in that raises a child protection concern. Something like that could catch the eye, so are processes in place to allow officers to report that without any fear of reprimand for reading mail?

This might sound a naive question, but is it often quite obvious that a letter is not contaminated, or is there a grey area that means that it needs to go for an official test?

Good morning. From listening to what has been said and what the cabinet secretary outlined, on balance, I am minded to support the measure. However, I have concerns, some of which have already been explored. My question is about the type of correspondence that is included. We have heard that it is “general correspondence”. Cabinet secretary, you said a bit about that in your opening statement, but will you clarify what is included? Does it include personal mail from, for example, prisoners’ children or family members? I assume that it does, but I would like that to be clarified. Has all general correspondence been opened since the regulations came into force on 13 December?

I have one final question for you, Teresa. What proportion of opened mail has been tested for drugs? You have said a few times that the scheme is in its early days. Is there a proportion that goes on to be tested?

I understand how difficult a balancing act it must be to decide whether to implement the measures. Clearly, if some people are using personal mail to get drugs into prison, that must be dealt with, but I assume that that is not the case for the majority of prisoners, whose personal mail would also be subject to the measures.

Obviously, prisoners are living in prison—that is their home for a period of time. They develop relationships with prison officers, and prisoners might have feelings about what sort of information about their family life they want to share with them. Are any rules in place about whether personal mail is read by officers when it is opened? Once it is screened and it has been confirmed that it is not contaminated with any drugs, is it then put down? You know the question that I am asking. Once mail has been read, can that have a wider impact of changing the dynamics in the relationships in the prison?