���˿���

I am happy with those responses, convener.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. Jim Phillips raises a very good point that will probably make up the bulk of our discussions as we take evidence on the bill, and it concerns the bill’s scope. Until you provided that evidence, Jim, I had not thought about the offences that were committed in the communities surrounding the miners strike.

Obviously, the bill is about a pardon for miners, and it defines what a miner was. Should its scope be widened to include those who supported miners on the strikes, such as family and friends, and who were also charged or convicted? That question is for Jim, but I would also like to ask the witnesses who were there whether friends and family members were convicted as well as miners, or did that not really happen?

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I was only a pup when the strikes took place—I was about six years of age—but like everybody who was in those communities, my upbringing was shaped by them. We heard about them through school; I can even remember them being talked about in primary school. That is how big an impact they had.

I am interested to hear from those who were there whether it was just miners who were ultimately charged or whether there were others. If so, should the scope of the bill be widened in that respect? I put that to Jim first, and then maybe other witnesses would like to come in.

Only if somebody else wants to come in, convener. I realise that there are four witnesses.

I thank both of you for putting on record how you think that communities have been impacted. What you have said is quite telling. There has been a long-standing impact on communities and, in many ways, it is still there.

I have a question about the scope of the bill, which you will have heard us ask the previous panel about. At present, it is proposed that miners will be pardoned under the bill, which defines what a miner is. An issue that we have wondered about is how often other people who were not miners, such as family and friends—or even, based on what you have said today, off-duty policemen and women—were involved in picket lines. Was that a common occurrence? Was it mainly miners who were arrested, or were neighbours, friends and family members—spouses and sons or daughters—arrested, too? Did that happen?