issoll. Welcome to the first meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee's 2022 section. I open now to all of you to be happy to break this. Today there is no apologies. For example, I ask you to please using mobile phones such as the Switch to Silent and Wait for the Sound engineer feature to switch your microphone before speaking. of the prisons and young offenders institutions Scotland amendment rules 2021, from Keith Brown, cabinet secretary for justice and veterans, Teresa Medhurst, interim chief executive, and Fiona Crouch-Hanks, head of operations and public protection of the Scottish Prison Service. I welcome you all to the meeting. I intend to allow up to an hour for this evidence session and refer members to papers 1 to 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to make brief opening remarks. Thank you, convener and happy new year to the committee. The purpose of this instrument is to add psychoactive substances within the meaning of section 2 of the psychoactive substances act 2016 to the list of prohibited articles in the prison rules and to provide prison governors with powers that will enable them to mitigate the risk against illicit substances, those that are being introduced through general correspondence sent to prisoners via the mail system right across the prison estate. Prohibited articles are items that prisoners are not allowed to possess in prison and currently include controlled drugs, alcohol, offensive weapons and other items. The amendments also provide prison officers and employees with powers that will allow them to photocopy prisoners general correspondence, provide the prisoner with the photocopy of that correspondence and to retain the original correspondence for return to the prisoner on their release. Prison staff will also be provided with the power to test general correspondence for the purposes of investigating to see if it contains a prohibited article. The use of psychoactive substances in prisons across the UK is escalating. The Scottish Prison Service has been working tirelessly to adapt its security measures to prevent, detect and deter the introduction of contraband entering the estate. However, it is a complex and multifaceted problem in our society with no simple answer to its impact on the criminal justice system. During 2021, there have been five confirmed deaths in SPS custody linked to suspected drug overdoses involving the psychoactive substance Etuzolum. That is an illicit class C drug, and the drug can be infused into papers, cars and clothing. Intelligence from the prison service also indicated that the number of emergency escorts to hospital, which were drug related, and the incidents of prisoners being found suspected to be under the influence of drugs, had escalated. Committee members will be aware of the emerging debate on this issue and that the emergency chief inspector of prisons has been calling for the introduction of the measure. I am also aware that families outside who work with children and families affected by imprisonment in Scotland have written to the committee in noting its support for these proposals. On the other hand, I know that there are concerns being raised by stakeholders regarding prisoners human rights. Many operational decisions in our prisons require rather a delicate balance in addressing a range of competing rights, but ultimately the prison service must do all that it can to protect and ensure the health and safety and wellbeing of its staff and those within its care. The instrument was considered essential in order to mitigate the threat of significant harm to prisoners and to staff that may be caused by further increases in the volumes of psychoactive substances entering the prison estate. The power taken in the SSI will help prison officers to prevent the entry of illicit substances into prison and to reduce the availability of those substances to prisoners. That can only help to reduce the risk that those substances present to prisoners and to prison staff. We did consider options to make the measure less intrusive, such as handling mail that had not tested positive for illicit substances to prisoners while they are in custody, but we are responding to an ever-developing threat with new substances being created that we cannot detect. Other options would not have been as effective in stopping the route for those substances into our prisons. We acknowledge that there may be an impact on prisoners as a result of the SSI and its implementation, but they will continue to receive the substance of their correspondence and they will be offered the choice of having the photocopy correspondence destroyed or retained so that they can receive clean originals on release. Those amendments will also only affect general correspondence sent to prisoners, not confidential correspondence such as privilege correspondence, court correspondence and medical correspondence, all of which are already protected in rule 56 of the prisoner rules. The impact, though of not doing anything, would be further disorder, illness and potential risks to life in prisons. I think that this measure strikes a fair balance between prisoners' rights and security in good order of prisons, which is also an essential factor in upholding prisoners' rights in general. The SSI has been enforced since 13 December and I acknowledge the concerns by members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarding breach of the 28-day laying period. In normal circumstances, negative SSIs are required to be laid before the Parliament for at least 28 days before they come into force. However, as outlined to the Presiding Officer by the head of the prison service, there was a concern in the run-up to the festive period as volume of mail increases. SPS would in all probability have experienced a higher escalation in the volume of PS being sent into prisons via general correspondence to prisoners. It was laid in November after careful consideration by the prison service and escalating concerns following the incidents at HMP Shots and Addiewell involving us at substances. It was considered critical that the process was in place quickly and before mid-January, which is when the SSI would come into force if laid before Parliament in accordance with the 28-day rule. The prison service will also contribute to everything that is possible to mitigate against any detrimental consequences impacting on the receipt of special mail such as photographs and occasion cars. Governors have been asked where possible to give consideration in the first instance, testing all cars and photographs using the rapid scan itemiser drug detection machine in order to allow them to detect the issuing of the original copies. It is recognised that the maintenance of personal connections and family contact is essential to the lives of people in SPS here and, of course, for their families. SPS have implemented a number of measures to support this. Those include access to physical and virtual visits, access to communal and in-cell telephones, and access to the email prisoner and prisoner voicemail schemes. The SSI has now been in force for around four weeks and there has been support for this change when the prison population to date. Early indications that there has been a significant decrease in recorded drug-taking incidents and drug-related emergency escots for the month of December 2021, compared with the previous two months. There were 248 drug-taking incidents in October 305 in November and 131 in December. There were 39 drug-related emergency escots for the month of October 307 in November and 15 in December. The prison service will continue to closely monitor the implementation of this across the state. The prison service and Police Scotland are reviewing the current memorandum of understanding concerning the management of illicit substances found in prisons, including the investigation and collection and destruction of such substances. Further meeting to discuss that MOU is planned for mid-January. In the meantime, Police Scotland have agreed to uplift all items suspected to be contaminated with illicit substances. I know that this was a concern raised by prison officers. I just to say, convener, that instrument is, of course, only one of a range of measures and support required for that. There is a co-ordinated effort by the prison service, the NHS in Police Scotland, and other criminal justice partners to limit the supply of drugs, including psychoactive substances both inside and outside prisons, and the provision of support and treatment will be required. It is therefore crucial that our approach to tackling the problem considers a balance between security and deterrence and also recovery and support. I am aware that, of course, there are a range of members on that issue, so I welcome this opportunity to take members' questions on the SSI. Thank you very much indeed, cabinet secretary. At this point, I would invite Ms Medhurst to come in, if you have any additional comments that you would like to make. Thank you very much. Good morning, committee members. I do not have anything to add to what the cabinet secretary has already set out, but I am really pleased to be given the opportunity to attend committee this morning and to provide answers to any of the questions that come. Thank you very much indeed. I will now move on to questions. If I may, I will kick things off just with a general question, and then I will hand over to Russell Finlay. First of all, thank you for the statement that you made. It is interesting to note the early feedback that you mentioned since the changes have been introduced. You also mentioned that concerns have been expressed about the lack of wider consultation before making the regulations, and while we appreciate that the prison service was keen to make progress on this in particular before the festive season, can you confirm that there are any plans to carry out a review of the new powers that can seek perhaps input from those working in the field and perhaps a wider range of experts? Will you ask the cabinet secretary to respond to that? Thanks, convener. You will be aware, not least from some of the points that were made in my opening statement, that there is an on-going review on the impact of that. That has included, for example, how prisoners, how their attitude has developed in relation to this, which initially in some respects was hostile and now much more supportive. That is explained by the fact that the bullying and the medical fallout from the prevalence of the psychoactive substances in prisons affects prisoners very directly, and they are in many cases very pleased to have that measure taken, not least because it leaves them less vulnerable to bullying to provide drugs for others. It is also the case that we are talking to the prison officers, the trade unions, and I am sure that the prison service can say more about that. For my part, I am not aware that there is a long-stop deadline for our review to take place, but I am more than happy to continue a dialogue with other interested parties, including some of those that have raised objections before now, as the process moves on. However, I will be keen to hear from Thlews and Methurst as well, and how have you on that? Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will just bring in Ms Methurst on that. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the question. You are absolutely right. With any such measures that restrict people's human rights or impact on people's human rights, we need to review that on an on-going basis. We have procedures in place within the organisation to review not least of which are on every establishment but also at a national level. We will continue robust monitoring procedures as long as we apply those measures. We also have to look at whether or not we have the right information and evidence to support the application of those measures, and we can vary them according to the intelligence profile and any changes in that intelligence profile as the measures start to bed. We will continue, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, to work closely with partners and others, both internally and externally, to better understand those concerns and ensure that we are taking on-board the views and perspectives that have already been highlighted to the committee so far. Thank you very much, Ms Methurst. That is helpful. We have quite a lot of interest and questions, so I will hand over to Russell Findlay and bring Russell in. After that, I will hand over to Fulton McGregor. Russell, over to you. Hello, Ms Methurst and Mr Brown. Happy new year to you both. It is a lamb that has been rife in prisons for quite some time. Prison officers tell us that a lot of that has been smuggled in through actives of mail, which is why the decision has been taken to now trying to sort that route. I was fascinated to hear from Mr Brown about the dramatic drop-off in the number of amulances being called since December 13, and that is consistent with the feedback that I have been getting. I have also been told that the number of mail items coming in has also dramatically dropped off. I wonder if, indeed, that is the case. It may be a question for Theresa Methurst and whether that is the case in one prison or whether that has been seen across this date. If, indeed, that is correct, whether that tells us anything about the prevalence of petizolam in the mail. Thank you very much for your question, Mr Findlay. I will bring my colleague Fiona Crouff-Shattson in to give more of the detail on that once I have given you an overview. Clearly, there are early signs that there are changes that are affecting the operation of prisons in relation to illicit substances, and the impact of that, we consider, is likely to be through the measures that we have taken with regard to mail. However, it is still early days, and we need a longer time frame to assess the impact before we determine and more closely link the actions that we have taken with the subsequent impact. That is one caveat that I would provide you with. The other thing is about petizolam. We first became aware of petizolam, because substances are changing all of the time. Even in the recent year, we are still working with Dundee University to better understand how the compounds are changing and what the impact of that is likely to be in terms of prisons and the introduction of illicit substances. We became aware of that in 2020, so around about the autumn time of 2020, we have been monitoring the prevalence of that during that time period. Over the early summer from then on, that is why we have started to look far more in detail at the measures that we have taken in order to prevent the introduction of illicit substances through the mail. To provide a degree of that context, I am not sure whether Fiona has statistics around the mail in particular, but I would ask if Fiona could be brought in now. We do have statistics, so most establishments did in fact report an increase in the numbering mail items throughout December. However, that was in the run-up to Christmas, which is to be expected and is in line with trends during previous years. However, over the past couple of weeks, moving into early January, the numbering mail items has reduced in some establishments, and that is certainly an area that we will continue to monitor as we move forward, just to find out what the impact of the photocopy of mail has had on the numbering items that are coming into the establishments. Russell, do you want to come back in? Yes, please. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, this measure has already benefited vulnerable prisoners who do not want to be in an environment where there are drugs being taken and the violence and disruption that goes along with that. I have read the submission that was made to the committee by the academics. I am just wondering whether Mr Brown would know the answer to the question as to whether the academics have consulted with staff in respect of their concerns. Theresa might know the answer to that, but if I can just quickly come back to Mr Finlay's previous point, he was asking about whether there has been a consequence in terms of the reduction of mail. One other consequence that has happened, which I think he may be interested in, and I have said before to Parliament, is that sometimes trying to deal with the issue of drugs in prison, if you deal with one thing, it causes an increase elsewhere, and that is what has happened in this case. We have seen an increase in the number of what are called perimeter fence attempts to provide drugs in prison, so it is quite clear to see that there is a tidal way of trying to take a comment on what we can, not least given what Theresa Mitter said about the changing nature of drugs. You are right to say that there is a consequence for what we do. I do not know who the academics consulted with. I know that they have a legitimate point, and we are happy to have the concerns of the rights of prisoners and others taken into account. I would point out that one of the initiatives came from the inspector of prisons who is very concerned, who is obliged to be concerned about the rights of prisoners and what we believe is a proportionate response to safeguard those rights. Perhaps Theresa could answer the question on who the academics consulted before they made their submission. Thanks very much, Mr Brown. I am not aware of who the academics consulted, Mr Finlay, and I am certainly not aware if they need any informal contacts within prisons. Certainly nothing formally came into us. Thank you. Finally, just in response to Mr Brown, it is inevitable that, as soon as you close down one route to another one opens, it is the nature of the beast, but it does not mean that it was wrong to take the action that was taken. In respect of the perimeter fence issue, is that now being the subject of greater attention from the prison service? Again, Theresa Brown's best place to answer that has meant that there has been an increased number of detection of that issue. I think that the system seems to be working well, but perhaps Theresa could give more information on that. We have a range of security measures in place, Mr Finlay, and perimeter security is always high on our priority list. The reason that we have picked up more and detected more instances of perimeter fence breaches is because we are deploying our tactical options in the way that we should be. Thank you very much. I will now hand back to the convener. I would like to bring in Fulton now, just to ask some questions around photocopying and testing. Fulton, over to you. Thanks, convener, and a good morning to the panel. Just listening to what has been said, I think that on balance in what the cabinet secretary has outlined, I am reminded to support that today. However, I have some concerns, some of which have already been explored. The question that I wanted to ask is about the type of correspondence that that includes. Obviously, it is general correspondence. I know that the cabinet secretary said a wee bit about it in his opening statement, but I wonder if I could clarify what is included in general correspondence. Does that include personal mail from maybe prisoners' children, for example, or family members? I am assuming that it does, but I wonder if we could get that clarified. Is that all that mail been opened up since the regulations came to force on the 13th of December? I am happy to try to respond first, but I will have more of the detail. It is general correspondence. Not all correspondence is opened. There are different practices in different prisons, so it may be targeted and it may be random, but it is not all correspondence. I have already mentioned the exemptions to this, so legally privileged information. We are also aware that legally or medically privileged information can present a route for people trying to circumvent this. There are measures that are taken to try to avoid that. Interestingly, we are aware of correspondence purporting to relate to the child abuse inquiry going into prisons, which is nothing of the kind, and it is a means to try to get those drugs into the prison estate. It is a difficult one to deal with, and I am sure that Theresa will not want to be too explicit about the ways in which we try to make sure that that does not happen, but it is not all correspondence. It is the case that we will look at personal correspondence, including correspondence from children, which is perhaps one of the most sensitive areas in relation to that. We have taken measures that are proportionate. We will make sure that they will get the original correspondence where it is possible to do that, but it is not all correspondence. It is targeted, it is random, and legally it is proportionate, but Theresa might want to come back further on that. Thank you very much, Mr MacGregor, for your question. General correspondence includes correspondence from families and children. It also includes cards and photographs. What we have done is provided strong fear through the work that we had engaged in with families outside to Governors to ensure that, where they are applying any of the photocopying to cards, photographs, etc., that that is considered to be proportionate at that time. If I could just remind the committee that we are still in the early weeks, it is only going in place for four weeks, and clearly over that period, as Fiona indicated, the levels of correspondence have been very high, so being able to be more discerning has probably been much more difficult. It is not being applied in a blanket way across all sites. For example, the intelligence assessments at both Cornton Vale and Castle Huntley suggested that it would not be proportionate to apply those measures in those two establishments. There are runes across the other establishments as well with regard to photographs, cards, etc. As the levels of mail drop, which is what we are anticipating, the intelligence profile and the quantities and scope of the work that has to be done in the establishments will enable us to nuance that much more to individual circumstances within the establishments and to take into consideration the impact on children and families. We are acutely aware of the need to protect the contact between children and their parent in prison. Thank you very much for that. I understand how difficult it is to balance that. That must be in the decision to even implement it, because if some people are using personal mail to get drugs into prison, it needs to be dealt with clearly, but it may be—I am assuming the majority of prisoners have not been the case for that, and their personal mail is subject to this. Obviously, prisoners are living in prison—that is their home for a period of time. Prison officers develop relationships with them, and they may have feelings on what sort of information from their family life they would like to share. Is there any rules in place about when personal mail is opened if that is read or not by officers? Once it is seen that it is not contaminated with any drugs, is it then put down, or is it read? Perhaps that leads to changes in the dynamics of relationships in prison, which would have wider impacts. Thank you, Mr McGregor. I completely understand what you are getting at. Obviously, the relationships between our staff and those in our care are critical, and they have to be based on trust and proportionate behaviour and responses in relation to any changes that we make. That has been a critical part of the development of the work that we have undertaken. Prison officers cannot read prisoners' mail without direct authority from the governor. Where the mail is being photocopied, they are not allowed to read that mail. They can only photocop it and then return it or deal with the original in whichever way the individual chooses for that to be disposed of and return the photocopy to the person themselves. We did undertake some internal consultations with those in our care, as the cabinet secretary outlined earlier, although it was limited in the main. Prisoners understood why that was happening. We were absolutely committed to ensuring the protection of their families and themselves to some of the bullying and intimidation that goes on. However, you are right. We have, in the procedures that we have adopted and applied, ensured that we protect that critical relationship between prisoners and our staff. I think that my next question might seem counter to my last question. I was obviously asking there about reassurances that the prisoner's personal mail is not being read. However, on the counter side of that, if you like, what is in place for officers who do, perhaps inadvertently, see something in the mail or read a part of it, which they have concerns about, perhaps, for child protection nature? What is in place for them to go to their line manager without any fear of saying, well, you must have read that mail to know that? I know that it is counter to what I last asked there, but from a child protection point of view, there could be a picture that comes in that raises a concern or something that catches the eye. Is there processes in place for officers to report that without any fear of reprimand that they have been accused of reading the mail? The regulations with regard to mail are really quite specific. I would be very concerned if, through photocop email, an officer did read any part of someone's letter, so there isn't anything in the rules that allows that individual to raise that, because we shouldn't be doing that in the first place. That said, if there are suspicions through things like inappropriate pictures, that is something that needs to be checked, so you would need to do that. If there are things that a member of staff becomes aware of, then, as I say, they can raise concerns for the governor and the governor can then approve the opening and reading of mail, but that has to be documented to ensure that where that has happened and that the individual concerned will obviously be told about it. Thank you. Just one final question, convener, if that's okay. Probably, again, for yourself, Theresa. Do you have any idea what the proportion of open mail is that's actually been tested, possibly, for drugs? I know that you said a few things, actually, that it's quite early days, but is there a proportion that's been tested? I don't have figures, because what we do is that we have random testing in each site, and we also do suspicion testing, so the amounts of testing will be dependent on the suspicion testing across each individual establishment, but, for our purposes, we will continue to undertake random testing of mail, as well as suspicion testing, so when staff are picking up mail and there is suspicion that that mail may be contaminated, then that will still be sent for testing. That might sound like a naive question, but is it often quite obvious that a letter is not contaminated or is there a grey area there that needs to go for some sort of official test? It's an evolving picture, Mr McGregor. I would say that methods become far more sophisticated, so some of the ways that we could identify contaminated mail previously are now starting to be ironed out by those who are sending it in, so we have to be alert and alive continually to changes in the methods and means by which drugs are being introduced and how that is being implied, but sophisticated methods are developing, even as we speak. I'm now going to hand over to Rona Mackay and then I'll hand over to Jamie Greene, so Rona, over to you. Thank you, convener. My question is for Ms Methurstyn. It's around the resource implications of this, and I wonder if you could tell the committee how much additional time have prison staff spent in dealing with the initiative since it started so far, and what impact has that had on the other work that they do? Good morning, Ms Mackay. Thank you very much for your question. I think that at the moment it's still too early to identify how it's impacted in terms of being detrimental on other work for two reasons. One is that we are in the initial stages of implementation, and so far my understanding is that, on most sites, Governors are fairly content with their arrangements and haven't had to put in place additional resource. However, you'll also be aware that we're undergoing another wave of the pandemic, and Omicron clearly is impacting not just in communities but in prisons as well, so it is unusual times to be able to assess both the quantity of time and the impact on other service delivery. Sorry, I can't answer that in any greater detail. I completely understand what you're saying, but I'm just wondering if you're planning to let's open things settled down, pandemic-wise, etc. Will there be some kind of assessment done on how much time staff are having to take doing this? We will continually monitor and assess the impact on establishments, and clearly, where there would be a detrimental impact, we would need to consider how best to resource and support each establishment depending on the circumstances. Thanks very much, Rona. I'll now bring in Jamie Greene, and then I'll bring in Pauline McNeill after Jamie. Jamie, over to you. Those are probably quite rapid fire questions in the interests of time. The first is to Ms Medhurst. Can you give us an indication of what percentage or proportion of original mail has been photocopied and passed to prisoners versus how much mail has been given to prisoners directly in its original form, given that, as you said, it's quite difficult to spot original mail that has been sold to drugs? Sorry, Mr Greene. Can I just clarify the question? Is this prior to the implementation of the proportion of mail that we considered would have been contaminated versus not contaminated? That might also be helpful, but I'm looking for a figure on since the implementation of the new policy. What percentage of mail at the moment is being photocopied as a proportion of all mail that comes in? I don't have those figures. I'm afraid, Mr Greene. I would need to go back and check what I can provide to you, but I'm certainly happy to write separately to you about the quantities and information that we have on that. Okay, thank you. The second rapid fire question that you like is that it's not just mail that contains drugs. I'm aware from speaking to prison officers that clothes are often soaked in drugs. That's obviously very difficult to deal with. How on earth are you going to manage that incident? Thank you for your question, Mr Greene. We have methods that we can deploy to identify items that come in through clothing, as well as to reduce and minimise articles that come in to the establishment. Each establishment, as I say, conducts their own assessment of the threat and impact and then deploys appropriate measures to try and manage and mitigate that risk. In the same way that Mr Finlay raised earlier about other means in the perimeter of security, we are very well aware that clothing, etc., may be another route in. We will continue to monitor and evolve our response, depending on the intelligence threat and profile. Thank you for that. I may have asked the cabinet secretary for justice a question. Clearly, serious organised criminal gangs are the primary drivers of drugs getting into prison, both to feed addiction but also to beat their lucrative market. First of all, you said that confiscated mail will be passed to police whether there is suspicion of drugs. Are the police following that up? Are you aware of any criminality taking place? Is anyone being prosecuted for either posting mail that is soaked in drugs? Or is there any recourse for prisoners who are on the receiving end of that? Does that affect conditions of parole, or does that affect their behaviour card? I come to both those points in a second. I think that it is important that those questions are answered, but it may not appear yet to the public. Perhaps on some of the issues that have been raised, for example the number of mail items that are intercepted, we can pass on to the committee outwith the public sphere. As Trisa has rightly pointed out, that is a battle of wits between the prison service and those trying to safeguard prisoners and stop drugs getting into prison and those trying to find new ways, so we do not affirm those. In relation to the point that you made about police and follow-up to that. First of all, I have mentioned that there is an MOU being discussed between the prison service and the police to make sure that all those items are uplifted. It is my understanding that there is no recourse for prisoners who, at that point, would not have received any infused material today. That is my understanding, but Trisa will know better than me. The MOU will result in all the items being uplifted by the police. How the police prosecute that is a matter for them. Again, Trisa may have more information on that because she will be involved in the growing up of that MOU. I guess what I am getting at is that if so much mail is being posted, that is clearly misuse drugs. Those are classified drugs. Someone is posting them, so there is criminal behaviour taking place somewhere in society, which does not seem to me that there is a huge amount of follow-up or indeed any prosecution. If people are being prosecuted for sending it, it may act as an incentive for others not to in the future. I think that Fiona will be the best place to answer that question. She worked very closely with our colleagues in Police Scotland. I will hand over to Fiona. Thank you, Trisa. There has been work on going between SPS and Police Scotland at a national level and at a local level, particularly reviewing the current drugs that are received into prisons and the methods via which they are received into prisons. That will help to inform changes to the current MOU. Unfortunately, it is not always possible when we receive letters into the prison to identify where that letter has originated, but Police Scotland will review any contaminated mail that we have. If there is the possibility of following up any criminal investigations, it will do so. I presume that, if something is clearly identifiable from a family member, dear son, dear brother, dear dad, it is quite obvious where the mail is originating from. If it does contain drugs, there is clearly an issue there. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could write to us with some input from the police on that. Perhaps my last question is in response to your opening statement. I believe that you said that original items will be returned to prisoners upon their release. Is it the case that mail could be returned to prisoners upon their release that is still soaked in drugs? Clearly, we want those prisoners to go back in society drug-free and mitigate any potential for them to return to misuse or addiction, and handing them back drugs seems to me like a surefire way to send them down the spiral of ending up back in prison. The issue has been raised before. It is a very valid one. It is the subject of that discussion on an MOU between the prison service and the police, and you will know that the prison service has no right to confiscate those materials. They do not have the powers to do that. It really has to come down to the police, and that is why the MOU has been put in place, which will result in the uplifting of materials that have been infused with drugs. On your previous point, I mentioned that family members may be sending materials. That does not necessarily mean to say that serious organised crimes are not still behind that, and the family member himself could be under duress. Sometimes it is a bit like human trafficking, where you do not want to punish the victims in relation to that. It is quite a complicated matter, but I think that you raised an interesting point about getting a better handle on what the police can and are able to do once they are taken to certain criminal behaviour, and we will follow that up. On both that matter and the one that you raised just now, I am happy to write back to the committee. I do appreciate that. Thank you for your time, convener. I guess that the big issue is that, if Matislam cannot be sent in the post, the questions are what else and how else. Clearly, they still want to get drugs into prison, and some will still want drugs to get in as well. What next is the real big question? Thank you very much, Jamie. I am now going to bring in Pauline McNeill, if I can just ask for succinct questions and answers. Over to you, Pauline. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the cabinet secretary and to Theresa Mayters. Can I begin by just setting out that I totally accept the necessity for the Government to move ahead, so I want to put that on the record? I want to prod a little bit, as much as I can, in the detail of how this is going to operate. I suppose that, under the heading of article 8, on the right to privacy and family life, especially for those prisoners who are not involved in drugs, so that is where I am going with that. Families outside have expressed a number of concerns, while they support the statutory instrument. They have said that there is a concern that families might opt not to send correspondence that could interfere with family relationships. Maybe I could begin by asking Theresa Mayters, who has already said to other members that staff are not allowed to read letters. However, my questions relate to how you propose to prevent that and how you propose to ensure that families who are just keeping in touch with their loved ones in prison and are not involved in drugs, and how you can ensure that there is confidence in the system and perhaps you could talk us through how you are doing that. Thanks very much, Ms McNeill, for the question. You are absolutely right. I suppose that it touches a bit on the question that was asked earlier about not just confidence but trust. The operating procedures that we have in place have been tested through our legal branch in terms of how compliant it would be with the regulations and prison rules. In addition to that, we have had contact with families outside and we have undertaken some consultation with those in our care to help them understand what happens. At the moment, we will obviously keep under review the operating procedure that is in place, but so far there have been no difficulties either from individuals who are concerned about their correspondence being read or about the manner in which staff have been handling that correspondence, but we will continue to monitor that now. We have internal complaints procedures, as well as prison orders are obviously entitled to write to MSPs and raise concerns to the SPI. There are a number of ways in which people can raise concerns issues if they consider that in any way they should perform what we are applying in prison that is disproportionate or has breached their human rights. Thank you. I suppose that what I would like to hear from you is that there is no way to get to the stage where people have to complete what I would like to hear. Is there something in the operating process that you can tell the committee would be a safeguard that people would have? We have only made the thing that he said four weeks ago. What would be that safeguard so that families outside and anyone else would know that the prison service itself has something in place that you said monitor, but what does that actually mean? Are we just going to wait until there is a complaint? I would really like to hear. The committee has only had this first opportunity to press down on this, and I do not think that any of us are opposed to the SSI. Would you have responsibility to raise those questions to make sure that, as the cabinet secretary says, the balance is right? I would certainly like to know specifically how then would you be—what safeguard is there in the process? Thank you, Ms MacMillan. You are absolutely right. It is the opportunity for you to scrutinise this and for me to provide that detail. The process as it is applied across prisons at the moment is that every time on a daily basis mail will come in, the mail will go to the residential areas, and those individuals who have received mail will then be told that they have mail and they will then be able to witness the process as it is being applied. Is that your present when there is a test? Does that mean that the prisoner's present? I am not sure about that. That probably requires Fiona to come in on this part of her. If I could ask Fiona to be brought in, thank you. Prisoners are present when mail is opened and checked, and most of the establishments, the process that they are following at the moment, prisoners are also present whilst the mail is photocopied. Due to the volume of mail that comes in in some establishments, it is necessary to photocopy the mail at slightly later time in the day. However, the mail is still opened in front of the prisoner, and then it is placed in a secure container and locked away and then photocopied and handed out later on. It is hoped that once the volume of mail starts to reduce, that process will become more slicker and will be able to open the mail, photocopy it and issue it to individuals there and then with them present throughout. That is really helpful to know, Fiona, because it is one of the things that families outside had asked for, because it says at me that the prisoner may be present, so I think that that is really useful. Finally, if there was a complaint that had been read, it is not likely to have happened at that point because the prisoner is present, it would be afterwards. If a prisoner found out that their mail had been read or that the confidentiality had been breached, the way that that would be dealt with is that the prisoner would make a formal complaint about that. Yes, we do have a formal complaints process. I am not sure how that would happen with the robustness of the systems that we have in place. The question is whether you are trying to understand the process, but from what you are saying, it is quite robust. That has given me some satisfaction today. I do not know for the questions, convener. Thank you very much. I think that Russell Finlay may have a follow-up question on that. I will bring you in, Russell. Yes, I do. Thank you. In relation to the memorandum of understanding with Police Scotland, in the cabinet secretary's opening remarks, he said that the memorandum of understanding was now in place and that suspected drug-salt items were being taken away by the police as a matter of routine. Under questioning from Jamie Greene, it was not perhaps as clear as that. Forgive me if I have misheard, but I am seeking clarification on that point. Fiona, you are the best to come in at this point, if that is—sorry. Thank you, Theresa. Mr Finlay, there is a current memorandum of understanding in place with Police Scotland and has been for a number of years. Due to the introduction of the Psychoactive Substances Act and the issues that we are facing in the prison, the memorandum of understanding requires updated, and that is the process that we are currently going through. There has been improvements in local practices and divisions over recent months, as a result of discussions at a local level between local divisions and establishments in a national level. We are continually looking to improve that, and we are in the process of updating the current memorandum of understanding, so that it is reflective of the challenges in the types of substances that we are now seeing coming into prisons. Thank you very much indeed. Katie Clark, I think that you would like to come in. Is it on this topic? It is really a follow-up to the points that Pauline was asking about, in terms of the mail being opened in front of the prisoner. Just to ask for a little bit more detail on that, in terms of to what extent the prisoner is able to see what it is. For example, if it was a birthday card or a photograph, would they actually get to see that, or if it was a number of photographs? Even if they were not handling it, would they see what it is? Obviously, some items have far greater sentimental value than others, and whether thought has been given to how items that have got more sentimental value might be provided to the prisoner. I appreciate that it is very early days, but how that is being handled, and I suspect that it may not be handled in a very consistent manner at the moment, if it is relatively early days, but what thought has been given to that? I do not know what percentage of items are being checked for drugs, but if it is clear that something is not contaminated with drugs and that it has sentimental value, there are times when it would be very helpful for the prisoner to be provided with that item, whereas much correspondence does not really matter whether they get the original or not. A bit more detail on that. Thank you very much, Ms Clark, if I could come in on this one. The steer that has been provided to Governors with the introduction of this new procedure has been very much around protecting, as far as they can, the correspondence and cards and photographs that would be of particular sentimental value, and particularly items that come from children. I think that the response that was provided to Ms Mackay earlier, clearly we were at facing a period when we had increased items of mail, plus we are also dealing with the Omicron variant in prisons, so that more nuanced approach has been much more difficult to apply over this period, but that is what I would anticipate happening, and certainly we will continue to work very closely with families outside to understand any concerns that are being raised from families, both locally and through visitor centres as well as through them, and to continue to take signings from those in our care to understand the impact on them so that we can nuance and change our approach and our practice to better reflect the concerns that they have, as well as protecting them from the harms of psychoactive substances coming in through the mail. On the point about the prisoner seeing the item, will the prisoner know what it was so that the prisoner would have some kind of opportunity to get representations about if that was a particularly important piece of correspondence for them? Absolutely, Ms Clark. They are present, so they see exactly what is in the item of mail, so if there are photographs, if there are cards, they will see every item that is contained in the envelope. I would like to bring in Rona Mackay and then finish off by handing over to Collette Stevenson. I would like to ask a wee bit more about the response of prisoners to the initiative. I think that the cabinet secretary said in his opening statement that it had initially been hostile, but it had calmed down. I am quite keen to know if I could ask Ms Medhurst's view on that. Initially hostile, now calmed down. What would be the reason for that? Because things are running smoothly, you would imagine. Are there any plans to do mental health assessment on the impact of that on prisoners, all and their families? If there are, can you give us an approximate timescale for that? Thanks, Ms Mackay. The hostility was through the focus groups that were held, initial verbal. When anybody's circumstances are changing and their contact with family and friends is being impacted, you would expect there to be a bit of pushback. That was not unreasonable, I think, under the circumstances. However, with a change of this nature and coming at the time when it did, I was really pleased that the amount of work that I had gone in in establishments to ensure that there was really positive engagement and constructive communication meant that there has been little or no reaction in any establishment since it has been implemented. That belies the concerns that prisoners have about how open they are to manipulation and intimidation, as their families can be. On the second part about mental health impact, it would be very difficult to separate out the impact of the change from the impact of the pandemic and the effects of that itself, but I am keen to understand how the pandemic has impacted on those restrictions and the additional measures that we have put in place to support greater family contacts such as virtual visits and mobile phones, as well as some of the other measures that were mentioned earlier, to better understand how those have balanced their way through managing greater restrictions as well as improved access to family contacts during this period. I cannot give any details yet, but certainly started early discussions on how we might do that in prisons. I would be happy to come back to Ms Mackay and to give an update on that at a future point. That is fine. I will hand over to Collette Stevenson. Yes, thanks, convener, and good morning. I was really going to touch upon retention and obviously the destruction of open mail, but I am conscious of the fact that that has been covered quite well so far. One of the things that I wanted to ask about was the mail that is tested and is found not to contain any drugs. Is it handed over to the prisoner while they are still in custody or at the end of their sentence? Excuse my ignorance here, but what actual tests are carried out? On the volume that is coming through in one particular item of mail, is it a law or is it just one or two? What are your findings on that? Thank you, Ms Stevenson. I will hand over again to Fiona Macaulay on this. She has far more of a detail. In relation to the testing of mail, as I previously said, we do random and targeted testing. However, just by way of some statistics, from August 2020 to July 2021, there were 8,869 mail items received into prisons, which tested positive for illicit substance. Now, the nature of drugs that are coming into custody is changing frequently, and we are not always able to detect substances that come in. Even though, through our tests, a mail item may not give a positive indication, it does not mean that it is not being impregnated with a substance that we cannot yet identify, so there is potentially still a risk that mail items are coming in, testing negative on our drug detection systems and still going into circulation. The other thing that I wanted to ask about was, again, the mitigation of mail coming in, and it was a recommendation from the inspector at prisons, which was in cell telephony. The cabinet secretary might come in on that. What progress, if any, has been made so far in terms of installing that into each of the prison states? I think that it is much better, Theresa. Who has a better grasp of what exactly where it is at? I think that the member has an interesting point and knows the challenges that we have had, but Theresa would have the up-to-date position on that. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. So we are looking at the moment, Ms Stevenson at the options going forward for in-cell telephony. We haven't concluded our consideration of that as yet, but once we've done so, then I would be content to come back to the committee and provide you with an update. Okay, thanks. I have no further questions and thanks very much. I am just going to bring this part of our meeting to a close, but before I do so, can I maybe ask the cabinet secretary for any information that he can provide on the timetable for the review that was mentioned? Will details of the findings of the review or any adjustments that are proposed to be made be shared with the committee, cabinet secretary? I think that my response on the issue of the review was that they hadn't had one plan, but it's a kind of on-going review. Perhaps the best thing to do, if it would be helpful, convener, is to provide an update to the committee whatever timescale we think would be appropriate. Given what's being said, we're only four weeks into it, so maybe after a three-month period we've got a better idea of how things are pining out. That would be a point that I wish you could provide an update to the committee. It may include elements of a review, but in any event I think it would be a good thing to update the committee on how progress is being made. Thank you. That would be very much appreciated. I know that I'm just looking at the chat. There are a couple of additional issues that we would perhaps be keen to follow up with you, cabinet secretary, so that would be appreciated.