Chamber and committees

The Scottish Police Authority will hold the police to account for its performance in relation to that. As you would expect, however, I have had conversations with the police about the issue.

There is a public concern and the situation requires further attention. It is vastly better than it was in the past, with the legacy forces, when people would call the numbers—I am talking not about 999, but about the equivalents to 101—and they would ring out, with no record being kept of the unanswered calls. Nobody knew the extent to which that was happening. I am told that that is very much the case now in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it cannot be satisfactory.

It is right that 101 is a triage service that directs people to the right place, because people sometimes call for reasons that are nothing to do with the police, and it is right that the police have a way of clearing those calls. However, it must be improved. I spoke this week to the chair of the SPA and senior officers, and they are seized of the need to improve on the figures.

I will be corrected by my official if this is not the case, but I think that I am right in saying that we already have that legal basis in Scotland. Down south, they do not have that; common law is used. It is a case of trying to make those things consistent. Previously, the point of disagreement was whether the provision could be extended to people who had died. That was the point that the Lord Advocate was interested in, and we have some assurances on that. It will not be agreed to by UK ministers at this stage, but we have some assurances around that, which we are willing to accept.

A draft code of conduct is not the same as a final code of conduct. If we know that the UK Government is saying, “This is our final version,” there is nothing that will give us cause for concern. As background, the committee’s predecessor went over this area quite exhaustively when it considered cyberkiosks and so on. There is a parliamentary sensitivity about that, which we are trying to be sensitive to by saying, “Let’s see what the final one says.” If it says what the draft one says, I think that we are okay.

That is a good point. It is almost the obverse of Jamie Greene’s question about what has been done during Covid that we could continue to do. There are things that we have had to do that we should not continue to do, which is a good thing for ministers to keep in the back of their minds. It might be tempting to say that, because a restriction makes things easier in some regard, we should keep doing it. We must guard against that. However, the Parliament and its committees are a pretty good watchdog in that regard. I am thinking about the recent discussion that we had about the extension and elimination of many of the measures, and there is provision for further and regular reporting on those things, so there are democratic checks and balances.

However, if your point is that the Government should also be looking to and checking itself—with Jamie Greene’s caveat—we want to see whether any change that has been forced by circumstances might be of benefit in future. If that is the case, we should get parliamentary approval.

The only thing that I will say beyond what I have already said is that, as you know, a commitment has been given that there will be a full inquiry, which will look at the actions of all those involved. I do not want to go beyond that.

Rapiscan is not very good for psychoactive substances, as you will know, and prescription drugs are also an issue. I think that the new machine that is being talked about—that is all I can call it until I get the name of it—is more extensive than that, but it requires a specific licence from the Home Office, so we are seeking that. I think that the Scottish Prison Service is involved in that, and it is not an inexpensive piece of kit.

We do recognise that point but, to go back to one part of your question, if people are presenting with drug addiction issues when they come into the system, that can sometimes be through acquisitive crime to service that drug habit. Somebody has an addiction, and that causes criminal activity. It goes back to Pauline McNeill’s point: we have to try to be radical about how we deal with that if we are to make an impact. To underline the concern that you have expressed, Mr Greene, if somebody comes into the prison and does not have an addiction issue but they go out with one, that is nothing that we want to see.

It is a matter of concern. It is hard to tell what the exact prevalence is, for pretty obvious reasons, I would have thought, but the issue is giving concern to the Prison Service—specifically, from my discussions with the Prison Service and prison officers, when it comes to psychoactive substances. These are not exactly their words, but they will say that, for more traditional drugs, they have a much more straightforward ability to deal with a prisoner. If prisoners take certain drugs, they become drowsy or inactive, sometimes to the detriment of their health in a serious way, whereas psychoactive substances present a whole different set of challenges, and officers are very concerned about that. We are indeed very concerned, and we are looking at new ways to deal with the issue—and, as Pauline McNeill says, we should be doing that.

You have spoken about being frank and talking about the elephant in the room. Let us just see how it plays out. If we come forward with some radical ideas, what level of support will we get to pursue them if we want to seriously deal with the issue, as I certainly do?

During the course of the past hour and a half, you have heard about a number of things that we intend to take forward to address that. That includes doing more on mental health support in prisons and on how entrance into the custody system is triaged, and understanding what is driving people when they come in. You heard a pretty extensive response from the minister about how we are trying to deal with some of the issues concerning women in custody. We have tried to address those issues.

On the things that you have mentioned, which I just discussed beforehand, such as the possibility of somebody going into a prison without an addiction and coming out with one, that horrifies society and it horrifies me. That is not distinctive to this jurisdiction; it happens across the board. Prison governors in England and Wales have stated that it is not possible to have a drug-free prison. I would like to test that to see to what extent it can be achieved. If you have any ideas about how that could be achieved, I would be more than happy to listen. I extend that offer to the committee and everyone else.

In the meantime, we are seeking to deal with the issue through the new equipment that I have mentioned, training for prison officers, which, I concede, has been limited through the pandemic, and other changes to the prison system. We should not accept the presence of drugs in prison as inevitable.

On prisoner safety, the vast majority of prisoners are able to serve their time in relative safety. We already mentioned in response to Mr Findlay’s questions the danger that is represented by criminals who are incarcerated because of violent crime and who are continually willing to perpetrate violent crime. That represents a risk; prison is not a risk-free environment and I am not trying to pretend that it is. It is our job to minimise that risk.

First, I do think that it is an area of concern—I would say that immediately. The extent to which it might be rising or otherwise is of course hard to tell, because the nature of it is secretive: people try to keep it hidden. The fact that we and the Prison Service recognise it as a problem is accepted, I think. Also—and there is a point to saying this—that is no different from other jurisdictions, as I am sure you will know and accept.

The UK Government has undertaken, or authorised, some new equipment in relation to that, but only for certain bodies. Again, it would be useful to get some more background information from the officials—if we could get the name of the particular device. We are looking to get authorisation from the—[Interruption.] No, I do not think it was that one; I think we currently have those. I think it is a new one.

Thanks for the question. I probably cannot answer it fully, but you are absolutely right to say that the protection of the public is the bottom line. We keep people on remand for that reason, and, obviously, there is a risk calculation. The decisions on who to keep on remand are for the courts, not the Government, to make. However, you are right that it would seem to be perfectly legitimate to look at the risks of, say, holding someone on remand because of the fear of non-appearance or other such aspects. It is right to look at the balance of risks. Some of that might require legislation, but some of it could possibly be dealt with just through changes being made to the system. We are very open-minded about that.

The bottom line is that we must see a reduction in the numbers on remand, for the reasons that Jamie Greene mentioned—the harms that are done. I am quite frank about the fact that it is perfectly possible that someone could spend longer on remand—even if they are then found not guilty—than they would have spent in prison had they been found guilty and sentenced. There are different pressures on the system, and we must protect the public—that is the bottom line—but, yes, we should look at these areas.

We will have something to say on that. The Government is looking at the matter with a degree of urgency. Beyond that, I cannot be more specific in advance of the programme for government. Neil Rennick has worked on this for many more years than I have, so he might want to say more about the remand element.

As I have said, we are in a period of relative austerity with regard to budgets, but that is an area where we can potentially unlock other savings and better outcomes. I definitely agree with Mr MacGregor on that. However, I should make it clear that, unlike some other people, we are not looking to have yellow-jacketed chain gangs—that is not what we are about. The question is whether the kinds of disposals that we are talking about are likely to produce better outcomes.

You mentioned finance, and quite rightly so. After all, the disposals need to be expanded, and you have to give the courts that make them the confidence that the provisions are there for them. That requires finance. Of course, if you do it in the right way, the costs will be less than, say, the £40,000 a year and the associated social and other costs of keeping someone in custody. I hope that there will be an expansion in that respect, and I suppose that it is my job in the Cabinet to argue the case for those moneys.

What is important is that there was a decision for Parliament to take—it has taken it not once but twice—and Parliament is continually notified by the Government on the situation. That is the democratic check that we have. The decisions have tended to be on the basis of a consensus among the parties in the Parliament, at least up until now.