���˿���

Good morning. I would like to start with Emma Jardine. It would be useful if you could outline your views on the provisions of the bill that would continue the temporary extension of the various time limits in criminal cases. Could you outline your organisation’s response to that?

Teresa, you said that you have limited historical records and limited records in relation to individuals. However, the letter from the Howard League says that

“in other prison services (e.g. Ireland) figures are provided for number of hours out of cell each day for example.”

What would you need in order to provide the public and the committee with the kind of data that we would probably find helpful in making informed decisions?

I am happy with a review in three months.

The levels of remand in Scotland are very high—they are higher than in the rest of the UK and higher than in other comparable countries around Europe and elsewhere. Can you suggest any alternative ways of dealing with such cases? What alternatives are there to remand?

If you were able to provide the committee with further evidence in relation to that in writing, that would be useful.

I will put similar questions to the Scottish Prison Service. What are your views on the provisions in the bill that would allow for the continuation of the extension of the various time limits in criminal cases? How would that impact on your organisation?

I, too, agree with the convener’s proposal to keep the petition open.

I am new to this petition; as I was elected last May, I was not on any of the justice committees in previous parliamentary sessions. However, I am aware of the matter from previous work. If there were a proposal to do something different, I would feel that I would need to know more, and it would therefore be useful if there were a way of getting more information at a future stage. I should say that I have not been lobbied on the issue—the only lobbying has been the letter that the campaign group sent in yesterday.

Given that I have not been involved in the previous discussions, I am at this stage very comfortable with what has been proposed. However, if it were suggested that we do something different, it would be useful to consider what information we would need to make such a decision.

I think that it is important that, in our response to the cabinet secretary, we push on the deaths in custody issue. However, it would also be useful to ask about the evidence that we have taken and the discussions that we have had about how sexual offences and domestic abuse are dealt with, and how that relates to the budget and, in particular, the new budget strategy. I am not sure, but it may be that the financial implications of the implementation of any measures that are necessary would be dealt with in the new justice strategy. If the Government is talking about significant changes in how sexual offences and violence against women and girls are dealt with, that must have financial implications. It might be quite useful to use the correspondence to see whether we can get more detail on what the thinking is.

[Inaudible.]—which is very sad. However, it is important that the measures are implemented sympathetically, particularly in relation to items of sentimental value. I think that that is a matter on which the committee would want to be kept advised, to satisfy itself that the regulations are being implemented in a way that is sympathetic to individuals who are incarcerated and cut off from their families.

The contacts from families, particularly from children, are incredibly important to that individual. The committee is very concerned about that aspect, so we would want to be kept closely advised on how the measures are being implemented. In particular, we would like to be informed if there were problems and the measures were not working in the way that we understood that they would work.

The committee will be monitoring that issue. We had a full discussion last week. Privately, all committee members expressed concerns about whether the measures would be implemented in that way, as we would expect.

More generally, I think that the committee feels that it needs more information on the scale of drugs in prisons. I hope that, over the coming period, that will be shared with us, along with information about how the regulations will be implemented.

As has been said, mail is only one route that is being used to bring drugs into prison. The problem is a far larger one than that of mail. The committee wants to hear more on that, and expects the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service to provide information to us on that in the coming period.

It is a follow-up on the points that Pauline McNeill raised about mail being opened in front of prisoners.

I would like to get a bit more detail on the extent to which prisoners can see what the mail is. For example, if it was a birthday card, a photograph or a number of photographs, would the prisoner get to see the mail, even if they did not handle it? Obviously, some items of mail have far greater sentimental value than others. What thought has been given to how mail items of more sentimental value might be provided to prisoners? I appreciate that it is relatively early days, so I suspect that how that is being handled might not be consistent at the moment.

I do not know what percentage of items are checked for drugs, but if it is clear that a mail item is not contaminated with drugs and it has sentimental value, there are times when it would be very helpful for the prisoner to be provided with it, whereas with a lot of correspondence, it probably does not really matter whether they get the original. Will you provide a bit more detail on that?

On the point about the prisoner seeing the item, will the prisoner know what the item is and therefore have some opportunity to make representations if it was a particularly important piece of correspondence for them?