Chamber and committees

Convener, I am happy to answer the question, but I would like to try to get through my answer before being interrupted, if possible.

As justice secretary, my responsibilities for the prison estate are, in my view, what are germane here. Prison rules—this addresses the point that Mr Findlay has made—state that people are

“able to self-declare that they are transgender and are supported to express the gender (or non-gender) with which they identify, with staff using correct pronouns.”

It is important to mention that, because those are the rules in England and Wales, which are underpinned by United Kingdom legislation over many years. That is the process that is followed by prisons in Scotland.

I have heard that said before, and I think that it has been said in the chamber. I was aware of that. Because I am now in post, I am concerned with making sure that the current review of the policy takes into account the most important groups. In relation to that, the views of women prisoners are of particular importance. The Prison Service is undertaking the review and the consultations. You may want to hear from the person who is in charge of that review.

I have heard other governors say otherwise and that they think that the privacy and dignity of women in prison can be accommodated within the way that they deal with transgender prisoners. I have confidence in that view, but, of course, it will be subject to the current review.

I know about and can speak to current policy, because I am involved in the process as a cabinet secretary. In the review that is currently taking place, people are being consulted with, including female prisoners, which is important, as well as other interest groups. I cannot speak to what you are asking about, as I was not in post as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans in 2014. I think that it is important—

Perhaps the lion’s share is not what we are looking to tackle here; it is the other part of it, if you like.

I am just very surprised and delighted to be asked by both the Conservative members to get involved in a philosophical discussion about this, which is a pleasant change.

There is another aspect of the test that covers the administration of justice. Philip Lamont or someone else can give the details of that.

That is a legitimate concern, but what we are saying is that the safety test will dominate in that area. When we talk about the administration of justice—we can get the exact words; I could not put my finger on those right away—we are also potentially talking about things such as jury tampering or the intimidation of witnesses. It is also about continued and wilful non-appearance at court.

If there is a worry that somebody might not appear in court and they are remanded for that reason, which is the greater harm that is caused? Somebody could be remanded for quite a lengthy period. You have just said that those things can get delayed for all sorts of reasons. Somebody who does not present a safety risk to the public could be kept in jail at the taxpayer’s expense simply to avoid the possibility of non-appearance.

The obligation on us is to ensure that we get better at making sure that people appear in court when they are meant to do so. I understand the risk. I speak as somebody who represents an area that had a very particular problem—one of the worst in Scotland—with that. The police took particular action to try to remedy it. We have to do more on that.

On the point about the test, maybe Philip Lamont could fill out the text that I have been unable to bring to mind.

What Philip Lamont said is that, even at summary level, where non-appearance is part of the case against a person, that can be taken into account—unless I am getting that wrong.

May I add a point, convener? This is probably obvious to committee members, but when I went to Perth prison and saw some people in a social space where prisoners could gather—I am not sure that it was a recovery cafe—the point was made to me that being in prison was the least chaotic period of their lives. The scariness involved in trying to cope with going back into society is huge. That is partly what this is about.

I make it absolutely clear that I am not drawing any analogy between veterans and people who have been in prison, but I have been making the argument for a number of years with the Ministry of Defence that, on day 1 of somebody joining the armed forces, they should be given the right to sign up to their local authority’s housing scheme so that they can get points for housing for when they eventually need it, even if they are not the slightest bit interested.

Similarly, we still have not cracked getting the MOD to give the health records of individuals who are leaving the armed forces directly to a general practitioner to make sure that the process is seamless and that a GP is informed about what a person has been through when they get to them. At the start of the process but especially towards the end, if people are more likely to have a rounded support package when they go into society, there is less chance of reoffending.

I will just say that, if cultural change results from the legislative change, which is to say that the Prison Service becomes aware of the need to plan from the early stages, that can also apply to people on remand. It will have less time to take effect, and we acknowledge that. It is also true that, if you are on remand, you often have access to other services, such as navigators, who will help in the process as well. I acknowledge that that is an issue, and it catches too many people by surprise. We have to be alive to it.