 Welcome to the Justice Committee's 10th meeting of 2018. I have apologies from Mary Gougeon MSP. Agenda item 1 is the decision on taking item 6 in private, which is consideration of our approach to scrutiny of the fire and rescue services. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on remand. Our fourth this year, the main focus today is on the experience of prisoners on remand, whether anything useful can be done in the remand period and the negative effects of remand on both prisoners and their families. I refer members to paper 1, which is note by the clerk in paper 2, which is private paper. I now welcome our witnesses this morning, Mary Cairns of Crossreach, who is manager of the family visitor centre, HMN, HMP Young Offenders Institute at Pullmont. Neil Clarke, project co-ordinator at HMP Kilmarnock, mental health advocacy service, representing East Ayrshire advocacy services. Elaine Stocker, deputy chief executive of families outside. Colin Macono, chief executive of the Scottish prison service. I thank you all for your written submissions. They are really helpful to the committee prior to our evidence session. I thank Mary Cairns in particular for making yourself available this morning at very short notice. I really appreciate that. We move straight to questions, starting with Rona. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I start with a general question about the impact that remand has on prisoners during the time in remand and then after release, if we could just start with a fairly general summary of that? We would like to start. We ever would like to start. It looks like you are smiling to me, so we will start with you. Neil? I would like to start. Yes, the impact we, the people we support, encounter, as I said in the written submission, we tend to get the referrals once they are in custody. It is very rare that we are supporting somewhere in the community and we are in court when they are remanded. The vast majority of the people we support, the referral, comes once they are in custody. The impact, as we have said in the written submission, is only mental health that we deal with, so the only people that we work with have some sort of mental health issue. The impact can range from when they are taken into custody, medication can be removed, so they can experience a delay in receiving medication that can have quite a negative impact on their mental health. Some of the people have been on certain mental health medications for a number of years, but for whatever reason, in the prison, that medication is not available. There might be security concerns. Maybe there is a risk that it will be billied for the medication. There is a lot of concerns from prison management and healthcare, but I cannot have quite a negative impact on the people who have a genuine need for that medication. Other impacts can be the uncertainty of knowing what is happening, particularly if it is the first time in custody. We try to get the referrals as early as we can, which is not always as straightforward as it should be, perhaps. A civil job then would be to facilitate communication with family members with legal representatives to make sure that the support is in place for the people that we are working with. That is the main impact that we deal with, certainly. Can I ask the point that you made about the medication? How is that monitored? You are obviously saying that that happens. What is the time elapses before things get back in an even keel, or do they ever get back in an even keel? It varies for the people who have regular contact with the healthcare department or the mental health team. It can be relatively quick, so when they go in on reception, they might be told that medication will not be available, but they should get a GP appointment relatively quickly, and that can put things in place. For some people, if there has been an issue with prescriptions or if there has been an issue in the community, they will have to wait for a mental health assessment, for psychiatric input, which can take a period of time. I think that there is probably more of a resource issue from the healthcare side. NHS would be able to speak to us more than we certainly, but for so many people that we have worked with, while they are on remand, it is basically a case of we will wait until the person has been back to court. When I have raised that with healthcare, it has certainly been, you know, there is maybe a concern that they do not want to set up a treatment plan if someone is only going to be there for a couple of weeks when they may not follow that treatment plan if they are going back to the community. However, than our people, we have worked with have been on remand for a number of months and have gone with no medication or no treatment where they have done in the community, so there is definitely a gap in the provision for people on remand. That is interesting. I am sure that we will want to follow that up as we go on. Does anybody else like to comment about the impact? It is one of the concerns that families outside here on a regular basis from the family's perspective that they have concerns about someone going into prison, whether that is a custodial, a longer term custodial service or a shorter remand, that they have no access to support for, they are not able to support their relative in prison, they are worried about medication and the stress that that puts on them as family members can be compounded by not knowing what is going on. It is an on-going issue. We know that the families face very similar issues as to those with longer sentences when they are on remand, and it is about the fear of the unknown, what is going to happen, how long is that going to be, so the uncertainty of what is happening in their life for a very short period of time can be a real issue. We have a national helpline that takes calls from family members as well as professionals, and initially we can be the first point of contact for families knowing that their relative has gone to prison, what happens, how do you visit, how do you tell your children what is the next point, how do you get the medication in, what about housing, et cetera, so there are a whole range of issues, not least medical. Do you think that the communication between the prison service and families is lacking? It sounds like it could be improved. I think that it has improved over the years. I think that the prison service is doing an awful lot to engage with families at different times of the process. I think that remand is particularly difficult. It is a very short time, it can be a very short time in prison, and by the time I suppose the person in prison is back to court, then they are out again. There is not enough time to do anything with people who are on remand for families to find out, for families to start engaging. That usually happens when a custodial sentence is given. OK. Mr McConnell? I thank you for the opportunity to comment on that. I am conscious that the committee has already heard a number of views and evidence, so I do not want to go back over that. I am just responding to some of the concerns that have been expressed. It is important to remember that, in terms of an individual's medical care, particularly prescription drugs, everyone sees issues for qualified medical people to deal with. As the committee already knows, everyone on reception, whether on conviction or in fact on reception for remand, everyone sees a qualified nurse on reception and will see a doctor within at least 24 hours. I have heard the concerns that colleagues and stakeholders are expressing. I have heard those concerns, but it would be important for the committee to hear from the medical profession, particularly those who are working in prisons and dealing with the many difficulties and the many challenges that people bring into the custodial space with them, particularly when it is either generally health-related or in a more complicated sense where it is mental health. I would not want to comment either indirectly or directly about whether or not it is a fact that people do not get the medication that they require. We would need to hear from medical professionals who make that judgment on a day-to-day basis. If I may offer some commentary in terms of the experiences of remand, you can look at this in two ways. The experience of being sent into custody, whether it is remand or conviction, can be for many people incredibly disconnecting and troubling and confusing, particularly for those who are experiencing the first time in custody. It is also true, whether we like it or not, that for many people who make their way into custody, particularly those who regrettably are on the treadmill and those who spend very short periods of time with us, many of them have chaotic lifestyles when they are in the community. It is almost a perverse aspect of custody that it can bring stability and access to services and resources that may or may not have either been available or that individual had been accessing while they were in the community. I understand concerns about reasons for remand or, potentially, concerns about the overuse of remand. I think that the disconnect, the worry, the family concerns about remand are absolutely legitimate and we are equally concerned about them as our partners, but perversely, if you like, there are positives that individuals can experience by being sent into custody, particularly for those who have chaotic lifestyles prior to that point. There are some good comes of that. Given that we have heard that it is usually just a short period of time if they are not convicted, what do you do to prepare them during that short period? What are the positives in that short period of time? I think that, again, as partners have suggested, it is very difficult and very challenging. The median number of days that people spend on remand in Scotland is 27. There is a range, but the median point is 27. Frankly, no matter which organisation you would be questioning on that basis. That is a huge challenge for us to do things that are not only immediately positive but those things that are sustained positives as people move through the process. Undoubtedly, the positives could be and will be for those who have chaotic lifestyles in the community. Stability will be access to, particularly, medical opinion and support, as well as getting signposting and gateway access to the many specialised and caring partnership organisations that are there in the community anyway, but individuals may or may not be aware or may not be accessing. Again, some might say that it is one of those perverse positives that comes out of being sent in the custody that, at least, we can make those connections. We would rather, of course, have to happen where it absolutely had to happen, but we are where we are. It is important that the committee considers that, although there are many negatives, there are a number of positives that come from that experience, too. Mary, would you like to? I think that, following on from the last point that Colin raised there, we have had families saying that they feel relieved that their son or daughter is in prison because it is the first time for a while that they have been able to sleep because they are wondering if they are going to come back and so please are going to come to the door. For some families, they do feel that sense of relief when they are put in prison, but I think that for remanned prisoners, the families do not know the length of time that they are going to be in. It could be for seven days or it could go up to a year before their case comes to court, so that is always a concern that they cannot plan, they cannot gauge how long the person is going to be in prison. Regarding the medications, we have had families tell us that they are extremely concerned about their family member in prison because sometimes the person cannot articulate to the medical services what the problems are that they have. I did write in my report about many families have said to us that their son or daughter has had, mainly their sons, had ADHD or autism and it has never been properly diagnosed and this is something that we are hearing more and more and I really feel it is something that I would ask us to look at and maybe we should start gathering more data on that. Young people go into prison and they do have ADHD or autism which hasn't been properly diagnosed, they are not therefore going to have the proper medication which they require. Another thing, young people's mental health issues are a problem as well for families, they get extremely concerned if they are up at a visit and they feel their love one, their mental health is starting to take a downward spiral and are they going to get access to nurses and doctors and we do always try and reassure families that those aspects of the health will be monitored but we would then introduce the family contact officer. If any family comes down and says to us that they have been at the visit they are really concerned, we would then immediately raise that with the family contact officer or front line manager to get to the whole staff and they can then keep a close monitor of that young person. Okay, thank you. Daniel, you have got a supplementary. Yes, I would just like to ask a brief supplementary to both Neil Clark and then subsequently Colin McConnell. Can you just briefly outline the nature of the disorders that people are failing to receive their medication for and what the impacts are? I recognise based on what Colin McConnell said that this is anecdotal but if you could just maybe elaborate a little bit on that point and how long are people going without their medication again anecdotally in your experience? Yes, so I now experience, as I said in the written submission, around 20 per cent of the referrals we have had in about three and a half years in the prison relate to people on demand so in numbers terms it is only about 30, 35 people we are talking about and of those people it is less than half of them have had the on-going issues of medication so it is a small number that we have dealt with however it does nothing that makes me think it is not happening to other people in the prison we are not aware of or possibly other establishments. I can only speak to the HMB Comarnock. Of those people the mental health issues range from depression and anxiety right through to people who have been on anti-psychotic medication that they have had to one number of months without. Again, we appreciate that there are issues in the prison environment when it comes to security or the medical issues that the medical professionals can speak to but I have argued previously just because there is a risk that someone might be bullied for their medication or misuse it. That does not mean everyone that is due at medication. There are people with a genuine need that sometimes go without and they may be suffered because there is a concern that it is going to be misused. I will just pick up on a point about the ADHD and autism. I have dealt with a number of people who have had a diagnosis of ADHD or autism previously but then sometimes there is a dispute over when that diagnosis is taking place and whether it actually exists. There can be people who have been on medication previously due to a diagnosis that might be assessed again and then there is a mismatch between what the person thinks. Their diagnosis is that the medication should be and what the healthcare professionals are saying based on a more up-to-date assessment. I have a lot of things to do with communication between healthcare and the people involved. I am in my main line of questioning. I will bring up the issue of ADHD, which will come later in the session. I am also just at this point to declare an interest. I am both diagnosed with ADHD and medicated, which is why I am particularly interested in it. I will follow on from that. Given the nature of the prison population, there is a high degree of comorbidity of those issues and people who offend. You said that it is more complicated with mental health issues. Can I probe you on why it is more complicated and, given that comorbidity, shouldn't it be a priority? I recognise that it is not as simple as that, but why is it not as simple as picking up the phone to the family GP and finding out what medication those people need? I would like to be, as a public servant, to the committee as I possibly can be. To answer your question, you need to have a medical professional here, because we simply cannot do that. It is not to be unhelpful. As a layperson, it strikes me that, given the very nature of the population that we care for in prisons, many of the people whom we look after have incredibly troubled backgrounds and multiple needs and deficits. It is just the nature, sadly, of the population for now that makes its way into prisons. I simply say as a layperson that it is complex for us as an organisation, with our many partners, professional third sector or voluntary sector, to put together a package of appropriate responses and care plans to make sure that we cover all the needs and requirements of every single person that passes our way. That is our ambition, that is our ideal. I think that it would be probably a statement too far for me to say as head of the prison service that we manage that in every single regard. I think that that is probably not the case. Going back to some of the observations and anecdotes that Neil has understandably shared, the committee needs to appreciate that neither I nor a prison governor working locally has any power or authority, be it legal or moral, to say to a medical professional, you are not prescribing that. I am a bit surprised, I have to say, at the sense that somehow we have power of veto over a medical professional in terms of what he or she may or may not prescribe. The prison environment is challenging, as Neil has touched on and as all the committee members will know. Prisons are complex places to manage and bullying does go on. There is violence in our prisons. I wish that it were not so, but that is the case. I think that our prisons, as the chief inspector has often reported, however, are decent, safe and secure places. I did not hear anyone suggesting that the prison service had a power of veto over any medication. I think that there is a real issue about information being passed on. If someone has been there and they have got enduring, as I think the advocacy paper says, and severe mental health problems, and they keep ending up on remand and in prison, is there some record? I think that we are going to the very heart of data collection. Is there any record that someone has been there before so that they have mental health issues and they have prescribed certain medication? Is that passed on? I could just ask you to indulge me, convener, just for a minute for that point of clarification. I am concerned, and I think that it is important that the committee considers this, that any inference that medical professionals are not prescribing appropriate medication because of concerns that the prison service may have. I do not believe that that is a case. There are many suggestions, and you can put your mind at rest on that, so there is no need to labour at that point. There is a point on the data collection. I notice, for example, when you mentioned the medium remand time 27 days, but those figures are between 2007-08 and 2012-13 as the most up-to-date information available. Why is that? Those are the figures that the Scottish Government's Justice and Analytics Department produces. We are all in the same boat with that. Those are the figures that we use. The prison service does not separately keep data on the basis that those are court processes. I understand where you are coming from. I think that there are data collection, data communication issues, but it is not something that particularly falls to the prison service to produce now. We are part of the justice system for sure. I think that what the committee has already identified and I have looked at the record that has been produced is the need for the justice system to work more collaboratively together to make sure that those figures and that data are available to people to create. Jess, this was done. Do we need someone to co-ordinate it with that particular responsibility because it is not being done just now? We have heard from Ms Kearns that someone can go in with ADHD, autism and that is not known about. We have heard from Mr Clark that they can have, or in the written submission, severe and enduring mental health problems and they end up there practically by default. How do we get the data on record to identify the problem and therefore the need to be addressed? In terms of who is following up directly to your point, who ends up in custody again is not a matter for the prison service. It is a process for the courts in terms of who ends up in prison. I am talking about the collection of data once they are there. I understand that you do not determine who comes before you, your referred prisoners, but once they are there, the collection of data? It is a challenge for the justice system as a whole. I do not think that it is for me to determine how the justice system should come together to do that. I simply accept the point that you are making and it is well recorded, but the data appears to be lacking and there is improvement required. However, you have suggested that there should be a more holistic approach to it. That is an incontrovertible point to make. Daniel, have you completed your line of questioning? Fulton, Liam Kerr and then Jor. It is following up from that point. Do you notice any difference when somebody comes from a court on remand if it is a mental health condition or a physical condition and perhaps when I am saying physical condition, a heart medication or something like that? It is something that the person would need that night. I think that this is a crux of the matter here. It is not about you implementing a veto or anything like that. I think that you work really, really hard and I do not think that anybody is suggesting that, but I think that the issue is that families and the committees have heard before that there is a delay in medication and I am wondering what your view is on when somebody is sent from remand and they are either new to the system or if they are not new, that does not matter when they come in. Do you see a difference between the way mental health problems are treated to physical health problems? Again, as I said right at the start of my evidence, from my perspective it is very clear to me what a person has in their possession in terms of medication is a judgment for medical professionals. Whether that is as you pointed it out or as you have posed the question something that is not mental health related or something that is or something that is both, those are issues that have to be determined and properly considered by medical professionals. I think that if AMD is on any medication for anything, then it has already been determined by a health professional, albeit in the community. I think that what I am trying to ask is rather than put all the onus on the prison services, what do you think could be done to make sure that that information, the prescription of any medication, can be relayed to you as quickly as possible, following on from Daniel in the convener's points, how can it be relayed to you as quickly as possible so that nobody goes into any delay, whether it is hours or days or weeks, it does not matter, it does not go into any delay. What do you think can be done at the stage of remand being implanted? It is a communication issue for the NHS between health boards and the prison in which health boards jurisdiction those issues have to be addressed. I am going to labour the point because I think that it is really important that decisions relating to the medical care of an individual passing into custody are made by properly qualified health professionals. On that particular point, I am slightly disturbed by that. I can appreciate why the decision around the medication and any other care needs is a matter for the health professionals. There is surely a duty of care on the prison service and you as chief executive of the prison service, to ensure that those within our prison estate are receiving the care and the attention that they need. If suggestions are being made that this is not happening in particular prisons or in particular circumstances, I would hope that that duty of care extends to you not extending a veto over anybody's decision but at least challenging and questioning the advice that is being received in the way that is being received. If there are issues around bullying and threats of violence and medication being misused, that is a question of how the medication is administered, not surely the withholding of the medication entirely. I am entirely agreeing with the point that you make. The responsibilities that you have described that we hold for people passing into our care are absolute, but there are issues that we address in partnership with other agencies. The discussion as far as it has been here this morning has related to health issues and the added complications when people have multiple needs and deficits. However, the fact remains that those are issues that we work in partnership with the NHS and issues relating to what medication and how it is administered fall within the purview of qualified medical professionals. Indeed, but qualified medical professionals are not necessarily journalists across the piece and they may be qualified in some areas but less qualified in others. One of the issues that has been raised is in relation to mental health, possibly with undiagnosed conditions prior to coming in, but there is an opportunity then when they enter into the Brisbane state to identify and respond to those needs. I think that what is being raised is a question mark, as to whether or not the medical professionals have the expertise to provide that diagnosis and that advice in relation to some mental health conditions. Mr MacArthur, I cannot comment on whether they are appropriately qualified or not. I take it on assurance that they are in terms of the decisions that they make. The general provision of services in the Scottish Prison Service of course is overlapping and multifaceted, so our staff do work on an advocacy basis when people in our care express concerns or demonstrate behaviours that might cause us concern, as do our partner organisations. We also have, as you know, monitors representing the chief inspector working in our prisons who also act on an advocacy basis. People in our care have, I think, levels of support that may not be present elsewhere in making sure that their concerns and their worries are properly presented and represented to the professionals or those organisations that are there to provide those services. I wish I could give you by the sound of it a more convincing answer than I appear to be giving you, but the reality is that issues that are specialist of that nature in terms of what illnesses or otherwise that someone coming into custody may bring in with them or may develop, we do rely on suitably and properly qualified colleagues making those judgments and then working with us to make sure that people are properly cared for. Put it another way, you are the first point of contact when they come into the prison and therefore they may say to you, I haven't got my medication, they may be displaying this behaviour, you think, is indicative of perhaps there may be a mental health problem, isn't there some way that you record this and then take up these concerns with your appropriate medri and how fast is that done? On the day of reception, there is a standard process, I hate to describe it like that, but there is a standard process that everyone received in our care goes through. Part of that process is seeing a fully qualified nurse who goes through a series of questions and discussions around mental health and wellbeing with every single individual who is referred into our care. At what point of time does that happen? Won't it be the minute they come in and they are presented to you where they may well say, look, I've just arrived here and I haven't got my medication? Yes, it is within reason and let me try to explain that because it's part of the reception process. Before someone leaves reception and moves to their place of residence, they will already have seen a qualified nurse who will have taken them through all those issues. We also address concerns about self-harm. All of that is discussed as well, history of self-harm plus any concerns that people may be… If you ask what happens to that information then, why is there a gap if, at that point, they've presented, the nurses have seen them within hours of them being there, there's still this gap and they're ending out without any medication? I make the point, convener, that I'm certainly concerned with the evidence of that. I hear anecdotes that people go without medication but we have health professionals making judgments about what medication, if indeed that person brings medication with them, what medication goes with them into their place of residence. Taking that conversation further, I would also expect that those medical professionals are making onward connections to pharmacists or to the GB if there are concerns that different medication or more medication is required, but it's not something that I can particularly comment on. I don't think that we're going to get too much further with that, but I think that you've gathered quite a lot of concern around the table about how this is operating in practice. Liam Kerr is supplementary. Thank you, convener. Just very briefly, we've explored how things appear to be at the moment. Two of the submissions and Marie Kerr's this morning both talk about possible solutions or developments going forward. One is assuming that mental health concerns, this is not revelatory. People have known about mental health issues coming into the system for some time. So it begs the question, what is in train at the moment to look at this area and to improve the system, and how far are we from a possible solution? I simply make a suggestion. I've worked in social care for almost 20 years, mainly working in Glasgow in residential care with homeless people. Many of our service users were in and out of prison often, but I was really shocked when I came to work at Polmont when I realised that all the care plans, for example, which are made up while the person is in residential care, that is not transferred over to the prison. That is a massive amount of information regarding that person, which I cannot believe that all that information could just be, obviously, what we need to be through data sharing and all that within legislation, but they're missing out such a wealth of information. Again, it can also help SPS staff to know the triggers for somebody to go into self-harm, or to know the medications. There's just a wealth of knowledge in those care plans that I feel would be a great advantage to SPS staff. Mary Cairns, if you would, on that point, you've proposed a solution. You've said that this could be better. That's only a very personal opinion suggestion. Neil Clarke, for example, you say various things in the submission about how it could be made better, but my question is, solutions have been proposed and suggested. What's been done about that? Who is taking that ball and running with it? That's the first time I've had a chance to suggest that. I don't often get the opportunity. I did speak to the governor one day at briefing, and I did say that I was really surprised that that did not happen. They were hoping that maybe in the future that could be looked at because I know SPS staff now are being trained to look at the more holistic approach of a person and looking into doing care plans, but that's not something that's done, as I understand, as readily as it would be done, for example if someone was in social care. Even the two years that I worked in secure care, with young people, all that information was transferred if they moved on to Pullman or prison after when they reached 16 years. From our perspective, I think it really comes down to information sharing and communication. Particularly within just NHS, there's been a few occasions where people we've supported, the mental health team on a psychiatrist, has had to wait for their medical records to be sent on from a previous establishment or other local authority. You would think that maybe this day and age everything is on the computer. It would be accessible, but it's not always the case. More locally, we're working on speaking to new prison officers during the training, and we're also working on referral pathways. There's a multi-disciplinary mental health team meeting between prison management and NHS. We're working on developing a way so that people have concerns about their mental health. We can access them and try to link up and make sure that the communication is there. Good morning, panel. Can I ask about particular issues for females and young people in remand, please? We find that we engage with many families of young male offenders. I think that the impact on females is colossal. The families that we have engaged with, who are visiting females, the stories are really quite sad. One wee girl that I think of often, she came in with her grandpa, and I was having a wee chat with her, and we asked her if she would she love colouring in and things. She said, would you do us a favour? We're really looking for somebody to design a wee voucher that we can put in the induction packs to invite people to come on to the bus and to come into the visitor centre. Yes, I would love to, but I'll need to ask my mum. I assumed that she was going up to visit her brother, because at that time the girls had just come to Pullman, and I was shocked and I felt so sad when her mum was one of the prisoners that she was going up to visit. A week or so later, I was supposed to hand in the voucher, and she didn't, and her grandpa said that she didn't have any colouring in, grains or anything to do. But when I saw that wee girl with her grandpa, her grandpa obviously adores her, he's got full custody of her, but that wee girl was only nine, and I just thought, how she needs her mum. Several families that we have engaged with, it's just so sad, I mean it's so sad for anybody that's in prison, but the females in prison, it does have a major impact on always feel the children who need their mum there. They do say that females get very little visits from the families. It tends to be the young males who get most of the visits. They tend to get visits from their partners, mums, dads, grandparents, but the same when females are in custody, the male partners are less likely to visit the tent of other things to do, and I've spoken to prison staff who worked in Cork and Vale, and they said the same, the visit numbers for the females were very, very low. Other panel members' comments at all, please. Sorry. I was going to add that families outside are doing a piece of work with the Prism Reform Trust on Transfer and Lives agenda, so that's for women. It's a three-year project and it's focused on reducing the use of imprisonment for women. One notable model highlighted through this project is the positive work that's been done, a triage between Police Scotland and the NHS, so that's bringing those bodies who are concerned for women into the picture, into focus, and they are sharing information, and it's about directing women away from imprisonment. I think that that's key. I think that it's really important. I think that women have additional difficulties as opposed to men going into prison. They might have children that need to be accommodated. The loss of housing income, I mean that some are similar to what the male population is going through, but the supporting networks that Mary has highlighted are not there for women as much as they are there for men, so it is a constant battle when women go into prison, whether it's on remand or whether it's a longer sentence, and we're working to sort of look at ways to dispel that. Would you have a comment on younger people on remand as well, as there are? Younger people, we tend to hear a lot from parents and from grandparents who are supporting young people who may have lost their way, and they are struggling to sort of cope with the enormity of someone going into prison when they may have seen their own children going into prison. Now they're going on children or there. There are a number of very, very good projects working in the community working with young people, but I think that it's probably an on-going battle at this moment. I wonder whether, from the responsibility that you have, are there particular challenges with dealing with females and young people in your estate? I think that, as the committee has already heard, Mr Finlay, I think that those challenges, those difficulties that adults face, women and young people, be they young men or young women, face them and some, because of the issues that are associated, particularly as it has been quite rightly expressed here with women, and the issues associated with adolescence for young people. It is particularly distressing for people like me that work in the system and has done for a number of years to see particularly young people coming in to custody, whether on remand or conviction, but in this case we're talking about remand who are absolutely bewildered by the experience. I agree with the comments that all my colleagues have made here, that there's a lot of good things happening to try and ameliorate some of the worst aspects of that, but being sent into custody on remand, particularly if it's a foster experience, is absolutely traumatic. Can I move on to ask about through care? Does the Scottish Prison Service, along with partner agencies, is that something that they pick up? Is it applied at all to remand prisoners? It's one of the particular strengths of the Scottish Prison Service in this case, and you've heard it touched on here, is the all-encompassing aspect of the responsibilities that we see. For those who pass into our care and for society more generally, we have a group of specially trained staff now through care support officers who are working across the service, and we are expanding that service into those who are sent to us on remand. Where they want it, it's not a compulsory service, it's where they want help. Again, what we're doing is linking with other organisations and agencies who pass through that boundary of prisons in the community to try as best we can to provide wraparound services for people who are passing in and out of the custody continuum. For some, that's what it is. I'm really grateful that it's already been commented on here in terms of the development of staff in the SPS. Again, one of our major development programmes is the Prison Officer professionalisation programme, which will, in a few years' time, deliver a professional workforce in Scottish Prison Service with professional qualification and professional standards, much of which will pick up in the sense of the approach that social work takes, as well as, again, the advocacy services that other organisations helpfully provide. Are you able to comment on the uptake of people on remand for your through care, because it was a relatively small number of officers who were able to say that they talked about it expanding? I can certainly write to the committee with that. Because it's voluntary, I think that it's more difficult to follow that up, but I'll certainly write to the committee. The increasing number of staff is that significant? Is it spread out geographically? All bar three of our prisons have locally located staff, but the service is available nationally. The Prison Officer professionalisation programme, which we will have the fundamental basics in place by the summer of 2019, will in fact deliver that level of training to all two and a half thousand prison officers in Scotland from there on out. I don't know if, Mr Stock, we wanted to comment on through care at all. Certainly, we are making links with through care officers within the prison establishments, but at the other end, so it's not with remand prisoners, it's with those who have served short sentences. We are certainly linking them with through care officers to support family members. When that person comes out of prison, they're going back to a home, hopefully, but they're going back to some sort of care and sometimes the families need additional support at that point as well. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Just very briefly, Elaine Stockley mentioned that there was a specific programme at Pullmont that was advantageous a number of moments ago, and also others in the third sector. I just wondered if you wanted to elaborate on those programmes and why you think they're affecting them. I think we're not involved directly with all the programmes, but there are a number of very good programmes going on in Pullmont. For example, there are and Marie could probably sort of give you more information about that, but parenting programmes, again, nothing that remand people on remand can actually access, unfortunately. So, whilst we're talking about remand here, none of these programmes are probably for those who are on remand. The transforming lives is a three-year project looking at reducing the use of imprisonment, so that's out in the community before someone goes into prison. We know that the Bangkok rules, everyone's sort of aware of that, is looking at prior to admission women with care taking responsibilities, and again, this doesn't lie with our prison or with us in the community. This is probably more with sheriffs or judges, but the Bangkok rules mean that prior to or on admission, and I'm going to read this in case I get it wrong, women with care taking responsibilities for children shall be permitted to make arrangements for those children, including the possibility of a reasonable suspension of detention taken into account the best interests of the children. Now, families outside are certainly happy to support this, but this is for any person with care taking responsibilities, and what we are finding more, whether it's on the helpline or whether it's through our regional support co-ordinators who are working one-to-one, is that there are a number of elderly people now going into prison on remand, so the care taking responsibilities also have a knock-on effect for them too. There are a number of things that we are involved in that we're working with family members to ensure that while someone's on remand or even in custody for a longer period of time, we can support them through this trauma, I suppose, for many of the families that contact us. Thank you. Rory Kerr, did you want to elaborate on employment specifically? Well, I can't really say too much about actually all of the services that are going on within the prison. My understanding is that if people are in their own remand, they do not get access to lots of things that are available in prison. The boys do not get access to any of the work placements or lots of other things that are going on. If they are on remand, they really don't get access to anything. The provision is very, very poor. That even goes as far as the benefits of getting no money, nothing at all. In fact, the chaplans have told me that they've often provided due ordinance stuff to wash their clothes. If they don't have family going in to visit, then those boys and girls would have nothing at all unless they are being convicted. They have no access to anything that is going on in the prison. My question is on mitigating the potential negative effects of remand. I think that we have already talked a good bit about that. Is there anything more that you can think we have done? The main thing that has come up today is information sharing. I don't want to put any additional pressure on any other agency, but I think that there is a lot of work being done over recent years in terms of when people go into a custodial sentence and we know that they would probably have a social work background report and stuff like that. There is a lot of information available to the prison service, but who makes the information available for folk on remand? You mentioned an example, but who's responsibility would that be? Would it be the prison service to get the information from the service that you talked about? Would it be the services responsibility? Would it be somebody at the court to pull all that together? I suppose that what I'm asking is, do you think that the panel would be helpful if there was somebody at the point of remand who's responsibility was to, I suppose, make sure that the information was passed on? I'm guessing that that could be done quite simply without a huge amount of resource. I think that that would be a good idea. An example from HMP Kilmarnock, which only relates to short-term prisoners, is Turning Point Scotland, run a prison support pathways project. They interview every short-term prisoner within, I think, about eight weeks of release, and then every fortnight there's a meeting with all the external agencies, and we go through the list and make sure that there's support, at least offered, to every minute that's due for liberation within the next couple of months. Something along those lines where there's a central agency or person collecting information and then making sure that other agencies are aware of people offering support for the community, whether it's not picking people up on the morning of liberation or taking someone to job centre to get their universal credit sorted out, and at very least offering that support to people that are not due for release. Can I ask particularly about housing? That's a key issue. It's maybe the major issue when someone is released from prison and the through care should be available. It doesn't come as rocket science to any of us. We know it's a major issue. Is there someone in local authorities or in any other sector that you have contact with that there can be this problem addressed head-on, and especially when it might be cross-boundary issues? The prisoner is in one location, say, at a well that's West Lothian, but the majority of prisoners come to the Lanarkshire area, which means that it could be Northside Lanarkshire. Is there a way to address that so it's not a case of, well, you're released from ADU well, nothing to do with West Lothian, and Lanarkshire says, well, you were in prison there, that's really nothing to do with us. Can anyone comment on that aspect? My understanding is that the person, say they do, live in Lanarkshire, then Lanarkshire housing would have a duty to place the person within that area. Again, if the person has been in tenancy before they were into prison, the council will keep their house open or keep it for them for about three months, I think it is, but if the custodial sentence goes beyond that, then that's when they'll lose that tenancy. So, if we become aware of any families who are needing support with housing, we would then support them to phone the housing, but often the families will be told, no, you need to wait till the person has been liberated, then they need to declare themselves as homeless. If someone has been liberated from prison to go to no home, that is a major problem. Even when I work in secure care, I witness social workers coming up to the secure unit and taking children at 16 years of age who are being liberated and taking them to Hamish Allen Centre in Glasgow, which is a homeless accommodation place. It's put them into the worst place, so, I'm sorry, I'm away in a tangent now. The answer to your question, they're normally told that they need to wait till they're being liberated and they need to declare themselves homeless at their local social work department. So, is that something that we can take up with the local authorities then to see if that can be moved? I mean, they should be in contact, you know, the date of liberation, roughly, I would imagine, and something can be done within the prison. I think for some families, when the person goes into prison, they feel that's the last straw, they can't cope anymore, they've made that decision, you know, it could be as Colin McSane earlier, these young people are leading chaotic lives. But for those young people who are being liberated who don't have any family support at all, they are very much on their own and they do need some kind of support. But again, if they're on remand, they don't have access to through care workers and other agencies possibly that could help. In the panel's view, is that one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, given the potential for then to fall into all sorts of problems if you're released and you don't have a secure place to go to and a kind of programme of how you can keep, well, just not go back to the offending behaviour and actually continue the regime that you started in prison? I think if you're going back to the same chaotic lifestyle with the house maybe in a high rise block with no sort of family support, no sort of prospects of employment, then what are you going to do? And how can through care help that when it starts in prison? Well, we certainly know that the through care officers that are allocated to the people in prison and again, as Colin says, this has to be on a volunteer basis. They will help that young person or that female to go to the housing department, so they will walk with them and make sure that they're being heard. So whether that's on a Friday afternoon, which invariably it can be, they will have someone there to support them to do that. It's not always the case with remand and if that's what we're looking at here today, there can be people who have maybe had quite a few weeks on remand. They may have lost their house because they've passed over that point where they cannot keep the tenancy and they have nothing else to go back to. They might not have access to a through care support officer because of the time in prison, they might not have known about that. So there can be difficulties there as well. A valid point about Friday afternoon, sometimes constituents will not own a Friday afternoon. It's an emergency and it can be very difficult to then find a solution. Maurice Corry, sorry that you had to supplement it. Can I just say that I visited Lowe Masters Prison twice. The PSP programme, Prisoner Support programme, Mr Cohn seems to be working very well and I'm encouraged by that. I have a particular interest on the veterans side and the armed forces who may be inside. Can I just come back to a point that Mary Cairns can absolutely agree with you? We had the same problem with veterans and also service leavers. For years we battled to get the records from the MOD health side into the GP practice. We've now achieved that and it's a model that I suggest you look at because we've now overcome that problem. When a veteran or a service leaver presents themselves at their local GP, the GP now has access to the full records of what that chap or lady went through and it can be quite substantial in making a decision to treat them. I do recommend it. There is a model there. It works on the armed forces and outside the GPs and the NHS has actually gone a long way to do that. I would recommend, Mr Cohn, that you go and speak to them because there is a model there. I back up exactly what Mary Cairns says. I hope for any other comments on that. Do you think that you can have a go at that? I think that the appropriate forum is the Health and Justice Collaboration Improvement Board that is chaired by Paul Gray and Paul Johnson with the very improvement in mind that you have just described. With the committee's agreement, I will refer that to that particular board. George Finne-Bynne? Thank you, convener. Good morning. A very small supplementary back of what Morris has already said. We are all aware that there are so many good programmes happening in the prisons, but the concern that we seem to be hearing now is that the average with Colin McConnell saying that the average is 27 days in remand. Are those people just falling through the net? I just want to know the very basics. Are they falling through the net? Is there a process where they can get that support, or are they just not getting that option when they are in remand? 27 days is not the median point, but it is not a lot of time to try and do something particularly productive with someone. It is not a lot of time, if I may be secured in a sense, to suggest to join the dots. If I may turn that on its head. Those are not people coming into the prison system who are entirely unknown to us. There are citizens with some sort of history. The point that is being made by the committee and the point that colleagues are making here is that all that information that we do know about that particular citizen does not necessarily come to the one point. I am accepting it. You mentioned that earlier on. Colin, sorry to interrupt, but you mentioned that earlier on. Is there a process problem there or is there a data protection problem? Why is not that information shared where it could make your life a lot easier and the individual's life as well? I think that it is all of that. I think that there are information sharing blockages that are related to particular permissions that are not allowed to be given across organisations without the particular individual giving a say so. Without doubt, there are system and process issues that simply get in the way because systems are incompatible. That is not beyond us to resolve, but it is a huge challenge for us. As the convener was understandably challenging me earlier on, my own thought processes took me to that point that when someone does pass into the custodial system, we would expect, would we not, that we know quite a lot about the citizen that we are passing into custody. I think that there is something about the need for a collected view at that point, which is related to the judgment to send someone into custody that sends that someone with a package of knowledge into that place where he or she is going to stay for a period of time. The convener's question about housing provision when people are leaving custody after remand was an important one. On a related matter, another area that is sometimes problematic, unless from constituency case work and elsewhere, is around accessing social security from the DWP. I wonder if you could elaborate on any interaction that the DWP is already having with the service in terms of those leaving remand and if there is any scope for improvement there. I saw you nodding your head, so perhaps you could go first. We can only go on the information that families share with us and at that particular time of need that they bring to us. We have heard many stories of families, particularly if they are receiving their benefits in a joint account. If the person goes into prison for the person who is left at home, it is really difficult for them to get their benefits because the other person is in prison and it is a big hullabaloo for them to try and get through to DWP the fact that someone is in prison and they still need to get their benefits and it can create all sorts of problems for them that way. I really cannot speak. We do not have much access to the prisoners themselves when they are liberated or even when they are in prison, so I cannot speak for the actual individual prisoners. I can only speak for what the families have told us. I think that you two are aware of the family issues and the impact of imprisonment whether it is for a week on remand or whether it is a custodial sentence can have a huge effect on the family and it affects income, housing, relationships all of the above. Sometimes you just cannot pigeonhole one. One can probably start the ball rolling and it impedes on all the other thought processes and all the other situations that the family is going through. That includes the person in the prison who is also part of that family. In the Link Centre in HMP Cymarock, where most of the external agencies are based, there are two work coaches from DWP, so we have quite a lot of contact with them. In terms of remand prisoners, they can ask to see the work coaches, the same way they can ask to see the housing advisers. That can happen before release? Yes. They make a point of seeing all prisoners before liberation, obviously with remand. They may not necessarily know when they are going to be back at court or liberated, but the prisoners themselves can request an appointment and they can put a referral into the Link Centre, so if they have any queries, they can be face to face with an adviser. Some of the agencies as well, which is mainly for short-term prisoners on liberation, can pick up prisoners in the morning. They will take them to the housing office, to the job centre as well to make sure that all the things are put in motion immediately. Do you want to come in, Mr McConnell? That is a very good point. All of our prisons across Scotland have a Link Centre or something of a similar title. The focus is that it brings the person who is in our care into contact with those service providers who are going to support him or her when they are released. That happens right across the country. The minimum contact is six weeks ahead of the point of liberation. Again, picking up on some of the convener's points from earlier, that is intended to make sure that the best will intend that someone has a home to go to, has a connections with DWP, has some connection with a GP appointment and so on and so forth. That happens right across the country. That is obligatory rather than voluntary? The Link Centre has described what for every single person who has been convicted, regardless of the time that they spend with us. However, there is a need for a distinction here. For those people who are sentenced to four years or over, there is a statutory provision that the criminal justice social work provides. That link is there for the longer-term people in our care. For those who are serving short sentences, there is no statutory provision, so SPS effectively grew the through-care support service initially to plug that gap, but because it is not statutory, it can only be done on a voluntary basis. So we reach in to the people in our care, we try to encourage them as we do our partners to engage with us so that we can have a robust plan. Again, that has been touched on here. That is for people who are serving sentences. When they are released, someone goes with them, on a number of cases it might be a prison officer, on other cases it will be someone for a voluntary agency or a third sector organisation to both act as support and advocate to those other contact agencies. In the discussion that we have here, it is a statistic worth considering that, in terms of stock and churn, there is a difference. For the remand population, the stock is about 17 per cent of the people living in our prison in any given day, but the actual churn is about 50 per cent, so the throughput of the prison through reception, about 50 per cent of that is driven by those on remand, where the day-to-day stock is about 17 or so per cent. When you begin to factor in your 27 days median point, you begin to get the sense of the scale of the challenge to try and join all those thoughts, make all those connections for the thousands of people that are passing in and out of our receptions. For very short periods of time, many of whom are already passing into our care, having spent years of chaotic lifestyle. I would like to follow up on some of the things that we touched on about the opportunity to engage and intervene when people are on remand. I would like to begin by looking at the specifics of ADHD. Some studies have concluded that about 20 per cent of the prison population have ADHD, and that stands in comparison with about three to four per cent of the general adult population having that. Indeed, studies also show that potentially up to half the prison population may have had ADHD as children. Given that, what particular interventions do you think could be made—indeed, I note that there is currently a study taking place at Pullman, whereby young offenders are being screened for ADHD, and that is immediately followed up. I would just like to start with Mary Cairns. Do you think that that is a sensible practice, helpful, and that it potentially shows what we might want to do for other conditions or issues that people might have? I was unaware that that screening was taking place in Pullman, and I am delighted to hear whether it is. However, the families that we have spoken to feel that, even as children, they have found it very difficult for the family to be supported through the GP or the education system to get the child assessed first of all, and then if there is a proper diagnosis. It starts right away from childhood, so I would suggest that if more support could be given to families of young children, the family suspect that they might have ADHD, then that would be a great starting point. Obviously, if they are doing screening programmes in Pullman, that is really, really good and it is good to hear that, and I would hope that that would continue in other placements as well. As well as ADHD, I think that any mental health problem that maybe, again, a young person cannot articulate or cannot explain if they are not getting the opportunity to speak to the right person, whether it be a qualified nurse or CPN or whatever is required. One of the things that I come across quite regularly talking to support groups, both for ADHD and other underlying mental health conditions, is the lack of recognition that many people with addiction problems are actually self-medicating. For example, that ADHD medication is fundamentally stimulant, so people abusing those sorts of substances quite often self-medicating, but that is also true of other disorders. Do you think that there is enough work going on within the prison service to not just address the substance misuse problems, but maybe try to peel back and interrogate whether or not there is a more fundamental mental health or neurodevelopmental disorder that may be played? Colin, I will come back to you on those points as well. Obviously, I do not work in the prison, we only work with the families, but it must be a minefield for the prison staff when a person is brought into custody, because they know nothing about that person and where do they possibly start? It is so overwhelming for somebody when they do get brought into prison and all the family contact officers and other staff do go and speak with them right initial when they come in, they have an induction period and they will go through everything that is available to them in prison, but often the staff will say it is such an overwhelming experience for them that it is difficult for them to take in all the information and do they want to go and admit to speak to a doctor or a nurse because then they are going to be made a fool of by their peers? It is such a minefield when someone is in prison, I really do not know that I am the right person to answer your question. Elaine Stocker and Neil Clarke, do you have any thoughts about the opportunities that there might be to identify and address issues, whether that is addiction, mental health or, indeed, other things as people enter remand? I feel it is unfair to put all the blame at the prison door. Is there an opportunity here, rather than putting any blame anywhere? I would like to say yes. I am just trying to think where that might be. I think certainly that there is scope for working. As we have said, there are many possibilities and opportunities in the community now, but it is actually the young people who are in this chaotic lifestyle who are not able to access that before they get to the prison. It is a sort of cart and horse scenario, so the young people who need it the most are probably not being directed to where they can get the support in the community, so they end up in our prison environment, where by then it is probably too late. We get a number of family members contacting us to say that we have been let down every step of the way, whether that was early education, whether it was NHS, whether it was support from social work, and now we find that my son is in pole month and that is going to be the rest of his life. Are there earlier opportunities to be able to engage with that young person? I would like to say yes, but it is taking them there, it is getting them there. Mr Clark, do you have anything to say? I think that there are definitely opportunities. I think that in our experience, the addiction service in HNP Commandments definitely need a good practice because they are very good at getting people stable. Normally people are there for, maybe not on demand, they are there for a number of weeks or months, but they are very good at getting people stable and then allowing them to try and plan ahead for liberation. I think that there is definitely an opportunity, whether it is for mental health, when we talk about some people's struggle to articulate the experiences of the views. That is where we can support people, so that is why we are aiming to get referrals as early as possible, so we can support people to assist them and articulate how they are feeling. I hope for linking them up with services so that they can start to plan ahead for liberation. A lot of people that we work with, they are motivated to try and turn their lives around. They might not have a chaotic background, but they want to use the time that they are in custody to try and get it stable, whether it is on methadone or getting mental health support and trying to avoid not the revolving door of ending up back in custody. I understand that the study at Pullman is based on work in Sweden where they found that doing the screening and getting people on to medication has reduced recidivism by up to 50 per cent. I am just wondering what your thoughts are about the opportunities and the limitations. I recognise that, within the 27 days, it might just be all you can do is to stabilise someone with a substance misuse problem, but any thoughts or insights that you have in this direction would be very interesting. I think that whatever discussion we have in relation to remands is a discussion that is appropriate for the entire custodial population. What you have introduced, Mr Johnson, is a question of why. Why is someone behaving in a particular way that we and the courts find unacceptable? That is the root of working with people on a basis of greater understanding to help them not only to avoid coming back into the justice system, but to grow and lead fulfilling lives. Ultimately, that is what we all want. I think that SPS has, in a sense, got on this journey somewhat later. Harry Burns has helped us as many other academics. We have learned quite recently about the effects and impacts of adverse childhood experiences. We learned recently, when I say recently in the last few years, on the effects of dyslexia and so on. People who pass into our care present multiple deficits and needs and complexities. That is the challenge for the custodial organisation of the Scottish Prison Service, to try to find ways of working with partners and experts to help to understand the complexity and totality of the individual and to work with them towards a more flourishing outcome. What you have highlighted in terms of ADHD is a key intervention for us to help to work with people more productively and more progressively in the future. One of my key concerns in the area is the evidence that we have seen about the lack of access to activities that people in remand have. That becomes particularly acute for anyone with either ASD or ADHD. Fundamentally, the thought that putting someone with ADHD into a small room without any stimulation and expecting their behaviour to get better rather than worse is mildly absurd if I can put it slightly in a slightly inflammatory way. What can be done to improve access to activities for all prisoners in remand, but maybe those who benefit from doing practical things, which is definitely the case for people with ADHD? I think that, as you have described, it is an approach towards inclusiveness, and it is based on a better understanding of the individuals that we are caring for. We are not a perfect organisation. We are not there yet, but we are learning. I hope that the fact that we are engaged in the research and building a service response on the back of that is a good indication to you and the community that this is a prison service that is live to the issues. We understand, of course, the limitations and the challenges that we face, but we are live to most of the issues and they are trying to build and work on them. Felly, do you have active programmes to look at what improvements can be made and make recommendations for those improvements for the services as a whole, both in terms of the sort of triage and identification of underlying issues? Again, as you would expect me to say, I think that that is a continuum. We are working on developing the tool to help us to understand where a particular person is at and what their needs are. I think that, working with experts in the field, we will build a response to that. If I may also say an evidence that I gave earlier, the prison officer professionalisation programme and the training and education package that goes along with that picks up on the very issues that you have just talked about. Again, that might require a response in relation to anecdotal evidence, rather than anything more concrete. However, the suggestion has been that, for someone who remains pre-conviction, there is sometimes an unwillingness to engage with what support might be available, in part perhaps, through a belief that that is a tacit admission of guilt or whatever the reason may be. To what extent is that a fact that whatever support may be available that if there is an unwillingness to engage with that support, there is probably a limited amount that prison service and partners are able to do? Is that a problem of any magnitude or is it very peripheral and only applies to a very small number of individuals? From my perspective, it is really difficult to give you a direct answer to that. For some people that pass our way, it might be something of a career choice that they have made and see things in very short-term bursts of activity and consequence. For others, it is a consequence of history, lifestyle and community. All those things influence one's preparedness or otherwise to engage productively with the people around them. However, recently, in the Scottish Prison Service, my experience with the assistance of a wide range of partners is coming into the custodial space. I think that we are managing to reach out and make contact with more of the people who live with us, even those who are living with us for a short period of time, than we have successfully done in the past. However, I think that that is because of our intention and our determination to do so. Does anybody else have any beef in that? It is not really something that we have experienced. The nature of our service is that people will make a referral when they have a specific need that they need support for. The people that do not engage do not have any feedback on their reasons for not using the service, even if they do have a genuine need. In terms of those pre-conviction and post-conviction, what is the balance in terms of who is approaching you for support? Numbers-wise, about 20 per cent of referrals have been remanned, whereas another 80 per cent have been convicted. Of that, we are talking a majority, a short-term cent. A lot of that is to do with the awareness of the service, so as much as we have been in there for three and a half years, it is still hard to get the word out on the wing and get a lot of the people that need or would benefit from the service to be aware of. The short terms definitely seem to have a more urgent need for support ahead of liberation. I just wanted to clarify, Mr McConnell. You may have answered this in my colleague Daniel's questioning, and I might have missed it. If someone comes in to remand who clearly has addiction problems, that is identified early on. Given that 27 days is a long time for someone with addiction problems, do they go on to a method on programme? That would be a choice and a decision for the medics, but we know that national approaches are to provide that medication. As I say, my expectation is that, if that is a requirement, yes, they would, but I would be guided by the medics on whether that was appropriate or not. Thank you, convener. It seems that we will accept that there are opportunities and possibilities to provide more support to prisoners on remand, which could have favourable outcomes. Is it possible to identify any specific barriers to the provision of those solutions to providing that support at this stage? I think that for a number of people on remand in prisons, most of their support comes from visits from family members or from people who will make an effort to get up to visit them. There is not much else for them to do that. I think that the difficulty is supporting families to be able to do that. If you are on remand, you can have visits six times a week, so six days out of seven, you can have that remand. For family members, that puts a lot of pressure on them to be able to afford to go there to put money into someone's personal cash account, to maybe take things into their own. I was at a local prison last week and a mum was standing beside me. She was trying to get a bundle of books in and she was told that she couldn't do that for rightly so, for reasons of security, because she didn't have two forms of ideas. She had taken two buses up. Her son, she said, was on remand and she was struggling to get something over to him. She had to take the books away to either post them in or to come back up at a later date on that two bus journey to get the books into the prison. There is the assisted prison visit scheme, which helps with visits to a prison, but that is only for two visits a month. If people are on remand, then the visits can be, as we have said, taken up to six times a week. That can be problematic for many families. A wee bit more support in that way might be helpful for the families, and that's given a little more support to the person on remand. I think that barriers for individuals, personally, there can be barriers to accessing healthcare in terms of waiting lists and waiting times, so if there's an average waiting time of four or five weeks and someone's on remand for 20-something days, they may not be able to access the care treatment they need. For us, as an organisation, it's awareness as well, so there's obviously a high turnover of people on remand, so it's trying to get the word out and keep the awareness there with the prisoners. I think more broadly for the third sector, it's also about sustainable funding. I think quite often we hear of pilot projects that have quite a big impact, but then there's no money for permanent funding that's something that's common across the third sector, so there is good work getting done. There might be good outcomes for individuals, but that service is not there after 18 months or two years. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on the barriers? Make the observation, if I may, Mr Kerr, that you remand, however, we seek to describe it, but at the end of the day it's sending someone to prison. With all the barriers that go with that and all the rules and regulations. Of course, there are some particular respites to those or easements of those rules and regulations because someone is not convicted, but for the most part someone sent on remand experiences a full panoply of being sent to prison. There are loads and loads and loads of barriers to providing someone an accelerated acute personalised service in those circumstances. Just explore that. It's coming at a slightly different angle, if I may. We looked right at the start about data and Mr Clark talked about awareness of what's going on. Do you have any idea, and I appreciate that I'm talking at a very general level, but whether the bulk of people being remanded are repeat remanders, if I can put it that way, or individuals, and this might be the first or second time, and then they don't come back again? If they are repeaters, do you have any idea of whether they are coming back and being remanded or refused bail for the same reasons each time? Because it rather seems to me that if we had that data, then a specific intervention could be made on whatever the reason is for the refusal of bail. Does that make sense? Your question makes absolute sense, and regrettably you leave me in the embarrassing position of not being able to give you a comprehensive answer to it, because I simply don't know. My impression would be that, for some, that is a fairly well trodden path, and we would recognise that locally, but, in terms of answering your question specifically, I couldn't do that, because I don't have the data. I think that that's a concern that we've been picking up through the committee sessions, just the point about data. Thanks, convener. Liam McArthur? It probably remiss of me, as MSP for Orkney, not to pose the specific question around implications of being on remand for those who find themselves someway distant from home and the support structures there. I suspect that you will all have experience of this to some extent, but perhaps not to the extent of those in parts of the country that John Finnie and I represent. Are there particular challenges there and things that can be done to try and minimise the knock-on impacts for those affected? I suppose to ensure that the disconnection between those support structures doesn't happen to an even greater extent, therefore making the reintroduction post-release. Is that a bit more difficult? If the committee would indulge me at a sort of rai smile, we've already touched on the disconnection that occurs through being sent into custody—in this case, we're talking about remands—and it seems to me to matter not whether you can get visits six or seven days a week or twice a day or seven days a week. The further people have to travel, the more complex are the arrangements, the more crazy that is. That can be the same for people who are travelling through busy cities, as it can be for people who just have longer journeys with that in mind. From my perspective, I think that there are possibilities for us to explore increased use of technology to keep people in contact. If the committee may remember—I'm trying to look around the committee members—I once suggested at this committee that we might even consider putting telephones in people's rooms and I was excoriated in the press for about 48 hours thereafter—some might say rightly so. I don't, though. I still hold the view that we should try and keep people, relatives or families important to them in contact with them, particularly as we've heard from colleagues and friends here during that period of what can be absolute trauma and bewilderment. My concern would be to explore the use of technology, particularly in terms of video connection, video visits, and we have some experience of making that work, but I appreciate in some quarters that that's a suggestion too far, but it's something that I would like to do. Picking up your point about phones themselves, I think that I would have some sympathy with that, particularly in the context of the crackdown on mobile phones. It's far more difficult to provide any reasonable reason as to why a mobile phone might be present if, indeed, you've got phones in cells that are subject to appropriate restrictions. As I understand it, the video conference facilities are limited to a fairly small number of prisons at the current time. What are the rules around those on remand accessing those facilities? While I accept that there are difficulties in those crossing large busy cities, I think that the remedies for that are a lot more straightforward than they are if you come from Orkney or other parts of the Hamilton Islands. You find yourself even not necessarily in Inverness but further south still. This is 21st century Scotland and we are seeing high-speed broadband cables being laid everywhere. That's great for the community and the nation, but I think that with that in mind, I think that with potentially a more liberal view—I use that deliberately—there are real opportunities, as the committee has been considering, to keep people in contact. Those are the very contacts that we hope will sustain people when they go back to the community. If we break them, some of them are irrevocably broken. I think that, again, the trauma, the difficulties that people experience in adjusting to the custodial environment—and let me assure you that there are no hotel hilltons in the Scottish Prison Service—the difficulty that people experience in adjusting to that environment, I think, could be ameliorated to some point by keeping people in more regular and visual contact with their families and loved ones. Have you also any comments on that? Absolutely, I certainly agree with that. There has been a pilot in the past when some prisoners, people in prison, were sent down to Barlinnie from the north side of the country and that worked really well. Family members were going into a safe place and office in partnership with one of the other organisations and were able to have that contact with their family member in the prison environment. It does not take the place of a good visit, but it certainly goes some way to making sure that that family member is still in contact with his or her family. Yes, I think that, certainly over the years, the evidence that we have heard, if there is contact on going with a significant other, it really does strengthen resolve of the prisoner to continue with the behaviour that they have learned in prison as opposed to offending behaviour. Therefore, teleconferencing does make sense in so many different aspects, even for having to take prisoners to a location that is pretty far away, the time that takes off prison officers, takes them away from duties within the prison. It makes sense in so many different levels. John Finnie, I think that we have to conclude. Thank you. It is just to follow up on that point, Mr McConnell. I do recall you making that comment. I have to say that I for one thought that it was highly appropriate and I thought that the response in some quarters was completely ignorant. I just want to understand the politics small P behind that. Is that dissuaded you from progressing that sort of idea? Because everything that we hear suggests that it is contact of that nature that not only makes things better for the individual but one that collectively has a positive impact within the prison estate for your staff? It is problematic. I think that it is problematic publicly and you will know better than I will that it will be problematic in a parliamentary sense, but certainly the Scottish Prison Service has not, as a matter of policy, pursued that idea. An idea remains an intention to do at some point. Of course, there would be resource implications in doing so, but it is also linked to that if without digressing, convener, if you just allow me this thought, it is also linked through to what we do through our education provision. I think that there are opportunities there to further develop the education provision in terms of the use of IT and connection with internet services and so on. We are there carefully governed through education authority. There is a direction of travel here that reflects the IT upscaling that the country in general is experiencing. We must work very carefully to ensure that the prison environment is not excluded from that. As Mr MacArthur pointed out, many of our sentences would benefit from doing that. It is a very small point. That is about any upgrades that have taken place on this date, particularly about new facilities that are coming upstream. Have they been future-proofed in such a way that that would be capable of being put in place at some— That is certainly part of the specification. I should probably make clear that I think that you have more of a video teleconferencing facility within the prison that could be accessed generally, as opposed to something individually itself, which I think may be problematic. I just asked before we finish, does the national prisoner healthcare network cover information sharing between agencies? Is there anything that you could provide to the committee on the guidelines and what is set out there that we could look over to see if you could provide that? I can write to the committee on that. I reinforced the point that I made earlier, that the Scottish Government, as the committee will know, has set up a health and justice collaboration improvement board that is chaired jointly by Paul Gray and Paul Johnson. That is a real engine room for driving connectivity between health and justice. Again, I think that there is some locus here in terms of what you have been talking about. Yes, that would be very helpful. As the evidence session today has been teasing out some of the communications issues in some of the areas where more support is needed and that we need to highlight and address, so I thank you all very much for attending. I now suspend briefly to allow the witnesses to leave and a five-minute comfort break. Agenda item 3 is further consideration of a negative instrument premises license Scotland amendment regulations 2018 SSI 2018 oblique 49. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. Members will recall that we previously considered this instrument at our meeting on 6 March and agreed to write to the Scottish Government for clarification in relation to the point raised on the instrument. Members will have seen that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice responded and this response is included as part of paper 3. Do members have any comments? Is the committee therefore agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the instrument? Agenda item 4 is subordinate legislation and consideration of six negative instruments. These are share of court fees order 2018 SSI 2018 obligated 1, share of appeal court fees order 2018 SSI 2018 obligated 2, share of court obsession etc. fees order 2018 SSI 2018 obligated 3, high court of judiciary fees order 2018 SSI 2018 obligated 4, justice of the peace court fees Scotland order 2018 SSI 2018 obligated 5 and adults with incapacity public guardians fees Scotland regulations 2018 SSI 2018 oblique 86. I refer members to paper 4, which is a note by the clerk, and ask members if they have any comments. Sleam Kerr. I'm sorry that I've done it again, Liam McArthur. I'm going to start wearing my name badge. It's nothing overly substantive, just reading through the explanation from the Government in relation to each of the SSIs at paragraph 4, there's a bit of detail around some of the aspects of the provisions that apply in each instance. It then goes on in paragraphs 5 and 6 to talk about the consultation, which is fairly bold when you get to paragraph 6, where there was 22 responses were received and almost all stated their opposition to increasing court fees or the charging of court fees at all, and that's effectively it. However, if you take the trouble, as I did, as you'd expect, convener, to then look at the details of the Scottish Government's publications on the website, it then goes in to say, as a result of the consultation responses, there were a number of changes, enhancements to the means-tested exemptions, special provisions for victims of domestic abuse, a reduction to the permission to appeal fee. I think that it would be helpful in setting out those sorts of papers if the Government were to actually make explicit what the changes were in broad terms on the back of the consultation, rather than including them in a fairly broad paragraph 4, where it seems to touch on them, but not that it may be explicit that the changes are a result of the consultation, and then go on to a consultation that, to the casual observer, just looks like a tick box exercise. Other than that, I certainly... I certainly take that point on the board as well. I thought 22 responses, no idea who they were and exactly what was said, and yet it's clear that they have been taken on board, so I think that that would be very helpful. To some extent, I think that there will probably still be those who are concerned about aspects of it, but I think that it would be in the Government's interests, but in the interests of transparency more generally, were they to make a more direct link between the consultation processes, the changes that were implemented? I think that it would give you some reassurance that that wasn't, as I say, just an academic exercise, the Government will go on through. Absolutely, because some of the concerns have clearly been taken on board. Daniel Johnson Yes, so it follows very much on from what in MacArthur pointed out. And so I've got two points of clarification that I would like to raise, but can I just start by making one generalised observation that the impact of this is quite significant, fees increasing on average in 2016 by 24 per cent, and this proposal will add 2.3 per cent this year and 2 per cent next year. I recognise the stated aim of the Government that they want the court fees to more fully reflect the cost of the processes involved, but can I just make the observation that that is a change in philosophy and that one point of view says that the court service should be there as a sort of civic institution and accessible to all, whereas this changes it to one that actually is one that you pay to access. So I would make two points about this, or two points of clarification. Either this is a policy decision to make sure that fees reflect the true court cost, or it's about keeping it in line with inflation, and I would just like the Government just to clarify the nature of its increasing costs given that payroll costs will be going up by about 1 per cent. I would guess that that's the largest part of its cost base, so can it just clarify why 2 per cent is required? Moreover, I note from the qualities assessment that there are no particular numbers involved, and I do note that there are a number of exemptions that are being put in place, but I would be interested to know what is the impact that the Government has assessed in terms of people's ability to bring action to court and what the increase in costs might do to their ability to do that. Those are the points of clarification. There's certainly a final equality's impact assessment that was undertaken, as was a business and regulatory impact assessment, so perhaps some more detail is that. Going into that, there doesn't appear to be particular numbers cited in that, certainly not on my reading of it. Certainly, in the past, when there have been court increases, the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland have not been in slow in sending in a separate submission to the committee if they were particularly concerned about it, but I think that it's a case of perhaps a little bit more detail on the impact assessment that might give the committee some more reassurance. Everyone happy with that? If that's the case, are members or is the committee content that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments other than the points that we've raised just now? Just to clarify that. No, it won't come back, but it's for future. So we'll send the letter, and it's really for future when we're looking at any of these instruments. Thank you for that. Agenda item 5 is the Justice Committee on Pleasing and feedback from the convener of meeting of 15 March 2018. Following this verbal report, there will be an opportunity for brief comments or questions, and I refer members to paper 5, which is a note by the clerk, and I invite John Finnie to provide that feedback. Thank you, convener. As you likely say, the Justice Committee on Pleasing met on 15 March when it took evidence in Durham Constability's report on Police Scotland's counter-corruption unit. The sub-committee took evidence from Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick, Duncan Campbell, interim head of legal services and Superintendent Andy McDull, professional standards department to Police Scotland. That was to consider issues raised by Chief Constable Michael Barton during his evidence session in the previous meeting on 22 February. It included Chief Constable Barton's concerns about Police Scotland changing the remit from an investigation to an inquiry, Police Scotland's obstruction, as he saw it, and in particular the views of its legal department and the risk averse culture it had adopted had unnecessarily prolonged the process. DCC Fitzpatrick explained that the legal advice that she had received indicated that, in accordance with the Police Service of Scotland conduct regulations 2014, to ensure impartiality, the person appointed to investigate complaints cannot be the same person to investigate any conduct issues that arise from those complaints. DCC Fitzpatrick assured the sub-committee that Police Scotland had taken on board the lessons learned during, included in the Durham Constabulary report. The sub-committee agreed that it would review at a later date whether Police Scotland had implemented the 39 recommendations within the HMICS independent assurance review of Police Scotland's counter-corruption unit. It also considered its forward work programme and agreed to next meet on 19 April to consider Police Scotland's review of custody provisions. As you can see, I am very happy to answer any questions. Liam McArthur Thank you. I think I would add to that by saying that it was a useful session, certainly from my perspective. I think that we got an acknowledgement from DCC Fitzpatrick that there had been a fairly fundamental failing in the duty of care to the four officers' concern in terms of the delays in initially approaching them about what had happened and, thereafter, throughout the course of the investigation, I think that duty of care maintains now, and I would hope that Police Scotland will, as I said, learn the lessons from what has happened and do what is necessary in order to provide that support. I think that, also, hopefully, the session identified that, whereas before we were told that the PSNI conduct report had led to no recommendations for action to be taken, DCC Fitzpatrick did acknowledge that, in relation to retired officers, had they not been retired, there may well have been recommendations for substantive measures to be taken. I think that that was an important distinction to be made from what was originally revealed. The final comment that I would make is that, while I do not think that, necessarily, there is more for the police and sub-committee to do it at this stage, I was not entirely convinced that, from the evidence that we heard, there is likely to be a move away from the risk-averse, overly legalistic approach that Police Scotland took. The representative from the legal department was at pains to say that it was about being risk-aware rather than risk-averse. It does not suggest to me that there has been much of a willingness there to learn the lessons of what has happened and ensure that, in future, there is perhaps a more co-operative approach taken. I hope that in the event that these events do not happen again, but, as I said, that would be my abiding concern following the other session. I would certainly share that, while we had an assurance that lessons were learned, the risk-averse culture had been adopted unnecessarily and led to a prolonged process that affected things so badly. I think that it is one that we would most certainly want to keep a watching brief on whether there is anything to be done just now and to look very closely at how those legal decisions and advice are being taken and safeguarded against the so-called risk-averse culture. Is there no more questions on that, Maurice Corry? I was concerned, in paragraph 3, the statement about Police Scotland's obstruction. What are we talking about there? What do they mean by that, chair? Through yourself, convener, it was felt and the whole thing hinges around the interpretation of the conduct regulations and the chief constable of Durham. My reading, if it is, goes wrong right from the beginning, because there is no clarity about what the task is being allocated. Perhaps, understandably, he assumed that it was the whole paraphernalia of investigation where it was just to look at the complaint aspect and not the aspect of conduct that may result from the complaint. That was part of what was viewed by Mr... I do not put words as obstruction. Also, the unwillingness to provide the names of retired officers, and the counter to that is, of course, we heard from the legal department, is that you cannot disengage data protection legislation in regard to that, too. However, I certainly would like to say that it is extremely disappointing that the senior officer at the heart of this, who was less than helpful when they sat at the end of the table, did not avail themselves to this inquiry. That is where the word of destruction comes from. The telling thing was that the information was provided, but it was provided in the first instance three months later and then two months later, and we did not get a satisfactory answer at the time of why that had happened. Very much of watching, brief... It is also worth saying, as John has indicated, that there are data protection rules around releasing details of retired officers so that contact could be made. What came out in the evidence session was a recognition that some of the preparation for inviting Durham Conservatory to undertake their investigation would, one would suppose, be an understanding about what would happen when that request came in for access to those details, and that had not been done, which, as the convener said, further delayed the whole process. If there are no further questions, we will now move on to private session. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 27 March, when we will take further evidence and remand, and we now move into private session. I suspend briefly. No witnesses to go.