Chamber and committees

You raise two important points. In my opening statement, I mentioned that it is not possible to be sure that someone genuinely cannot pass on the information disclosing the location of a victim’s body, which I think is one of the reasons why the motion butts up against the ECHR. For me, the more profound point—and it is well for us to explain our rationale for such decisions—is that I believe that the court, when handing down a sentence, is the right place to consider issues such as a wilful refusal to reveal the location of a body. I agree that that information is vitally important for the victim’s family for the reasons that we are familiar with, and I think that it is reprehensible for a person to withhold that. However, the court can take that into account. My view is that we are asking for the Parole Board to take on the functions of sentencing, because it could continue to set the sentence beyond that which the court had handed down; not least the punishment part of it.

As I have said, I am happy to listen to other points of view. If people are unhappy, they can annul the rules or they can introduce legislation to amend the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I do not want to be too definitive about it, but it seems to me that that would butt up against the ECHR’s provisions, which is my position and that of the Government. As ever, I try to be open-minded if others have a different point of view.

As a point of clarification, England and Wales do not have Suzanne’s law or its counterpart, as has been suggested: there is no provision that does that. The Parole Board for England and Wales would have to take those matters into account, but it does not have the requirement to do that in a way that has been suggested by those people who are proposing Suzanne’s law.

I cannot be held responsible for BBC stories. There was a story in the media saying that I had misled the Parliament last year, which was completely fallacious. It was reported in all media outlets and there were virtually no corrections. Quite rightly, I cannot govern the media. However, I accept some of the points that have been made about improvements to the victim notification scheme. That is why we are having the review. It is independent, but it can receive representations. I encourage members, in particular Jamie Greene who has an interest, to make representations, which will subsequently be taken into account. I genuinely think that we can do more to improve the victim notification scheme, although we have to be mindful—as we have been in the rules under discussion—not to overstep the mark in such a way that we retraumatise people who do not want to have that information for perfectly understandable reasons. I will leave it there.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to answer questions regarding the management of transgender prisoners and the recommendations of the urgent case review. There have, of course, been concerns expressed about the issue. It is important to provide assurance around the safety of all people in the care of the SPS.

In a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate to raise questions and seek assurance. However, the wider discussion around gender identity has risked stigmatising transgender people, which will have a real and direct impact on both transgender people and the broader community of which they are part. As MSPs, it falls on us to provide responsible, rational and compassionate leadership. I hope that the committee would agree that it would be abhorrent if any legitimate scrutiny of the matter was allowed to fuel the view that trans women somehow pose an inherent risk to women. That is clearly not the case, and I remain concerned that that view is even further marginalising trans individuals.

As in any discussion involving the criminal justice system, we must also never forget that the victims who will be affected by these instances are also affected by the things that we say. That is true of the specific case to which the lessons learned review relates, and I pay tribute to those women for their bravery.

As I said in Parliament, I am keen that the discussions around the issues and the lessons learned review are calm and founded on fact. I am confident that, approached in that way, you will be reassured around both the lessons learned and the wider management of individuals in the care of the Scottish Prison Service.

I commend the SPS’s expertise—you have just heard some of the bona fides of the people involved in that process—and their track record of managing the risk posed by individuals in their care.

A number of high-profile individuals have been discussed in the media and mentioned in Parliament. I am also aware that there are other transgender individuals in the prison estate who have been living in their allocated establishment for lengthy periods of time without any issue or concern.

It remains a long-standing principle of the Scottish Government and the SPS that we do not comment on individual cases, and although that approach has been particularly challenging in this instance, I do not consider it appropriate to forensically examine the details of every individual case in a public forum.

The current SPS policy around the management of transgender individuals has been in place from 2014. On 29 January this year, as a result of the specific circumstances of the case that has been mentioned, I announced that a number of interim measures had been decided by the SPS. First, no transgender person with a history of violence against women, which includes sexual offences against women, who was already in custody would be moved from the male to the female estate. In addition, no newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner with any history of violence against women would be placed in the female estate. Any case that required such a move would be in exceptional circumstances and would require to be approved by ministers.

A lessons learned review into the circumstances of the Isla Bryson case was also conducted by the SPS, and I am very grateful to the Prison Service for doing that work and for its conclusions and recommendations. Although the full report will not be published due to the significant amount of personal data relating to both the individual and SPS staff, I wrote to the committee on 9 February in that regard and I published a letter and key recommendations from the SPS. It might be helpful to mention briefly some of the key points in it.

As we have heard, Teresa Medhurst confirmed that SPS policy was followed during each decision-making process and risk assessment. Most significant, she has also confirmed that at no time during that period were any women in SPS care at risk of harm as a consequence of the management of the individual. I am mindful that that assurance points to the effective operation of SPS practice and the existing policy.

Teresa Medhurst has also confirmed that, after the initial risk assessment procedure and multidisciplinary case conference that were undertaken in terms of that policy, the individual concerned was transferred to and remains in the male estate. As additional assurance, I advise that full multidisciplinary reviews are also currently under way for each transgender person who is in custody.

The Scottish Prison Service indicated that the protective measures that were originally put in place would be amended to take account of the lessons learned review and developing operational experience. Critically, it remains the case that any transgender person who is currently in custody and who has any history of violence against women, including sexual offences, will not be relocated from the male to the female estate. However, the SPS has decided that any newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner, not just those with a history of violence against women, will initially be placed in an establishment that is commensurate with their birth gender. That wider measure reflects operational practicalities, which I am sure that Teresa will be able to talk to if you require. In the light of the lessons learned review highlighting the lack of available information sharing at the pre-custody and post-admission stage, that is a precautionary approach that I commend. Again, in exceptional circumstances in which a move contrary to those measures is required, ministerial approval will be required and sought.

A key area for improvement from the lessons learned review is for improved information sharing and communication between justice partners and the SPS to allow for advanced alerts to ensure that there is a clearer approach to the transfer of transgender individuals from the court to SPS custody.

The review also supported the current approach to individualised risk assessments and the balancing of rights, but it highlighted the need to consider improvements to the admissions process, particularly around the weight attached to an individual’s offending history.

Teresa has indicated that she has accepted those recommendations and that the SPS has started work to action them. The SPS has confirmed that the lessons that have been learned will also feed into its on-going review of its policy on the management of transgender prisoners.

As we have heard, the management of any group of prisoners involves an element of risk; clearly, that is not unique to prisoners who are transgender. The approach that the SPS takes must be based on its legal obligations and on the human rights and trauma-informed approach that it takes to all those in its care. Crucially, it must protect the safety of all prisoners and staff.

Along with the chief executive, I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has on these issues.

I found out when it became evident from the media. I am not normally uniformly told of every prisoner who is sent to prison.

I have just answered that question.

As I outlined in my initial reply, we have established a task force that will meet for the second time in March. We will also hold a workshop with key multi-agency partners later this month as part of a deep dive into what a domestic homicide review model for Scotland might look like. That will inevitably include a discussion around scope, as the member has raised, and I am sure that the issues that she has raised will be part of that discussion. I will certainly ensure that the member’s comments are taken into consideration as that work progresses. I am also happy to keep the member informed of the group’s progress.

No, I believe that the sentences that the courts currently have the powers to hand down are sufficient for the purposes that have been described. I do, however, associate myself with the comments made by the member in relation to the horrendous nature of the crime that is being perpetrated, especially by partners of female victims.

It might be the case that 70 per cent of the victims of homicide are men, but it is men who are committing those crimes, as well as the crimes against women. It is really important to tackle this in a preventative manner, as well as making sure that people are properly sentenced; prevention is about thinking about things such as education, including our equally safe strategy.

All members of the Scottish Parliament go into schools regularly. When I do, I reinforce the message that when stereotypes and entitlement start in schools, that is when misogyny starts, and that is what can end up in these terrible figures. I hope that all members take the opportunity to do that because we all have a part to play in relation to this issue.

The number of homicide victims in 2021-22 reduced from 59 to 53, the lowest recorded number since comparable records began. Despite that overall reduction, the number of female victims increased from 10 to 16, meaning that 30 per cent of victims in 2021-22 were female. Over half—56 per cent—of female victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner.

We are working on developing a multi-agency domestic homicide review model for Scotland through the recently established domestic homicide review task force. The model will aim to learn lessons to help prevent and reduce the number of homicides related to domestic abuse and to give a voice to those who have been killed.

That is a fairly good prediction. I think that Mr Findlay proposed an amendment previously. We are looking at how we can proceed at stage 2, as well.

We always listen to local authorities. Interestingly—I think that I am right in saying this—the COSLA spokesperson with whom we primarily carry out such discussions is also from South Lanarkshire Council. Of course we listen to local authorities. It will often be the case that we have different views, but we have to evidence those views.

Things should also be seen in the light of the increased investment that has already been made. This year, we have done something that is important but not always easy to achieve. We do not want, at the same time as we encourage some authorities to get off the ground services that they are not providing, to be punishing authorities that are providing those services. We have to help them to improve their services as well. We did that effectively with a split of, I think, £11.8 million and £3.2 million for different purposes.

We have therefore funded those things already—we are not going from a standing start—but we will, of course, continue to have discussions with COSLA and Social Work Scotland. That is part of the general process of finding out what the exact resource requirements will be. I do not think that this committee, or any other committee of the Parliament, gets through many evidence sessions in which the issue of resource does not come up, and matters are often contested. However, we will try to reach an agreement with COSLA in that regard.

No. We are careful not to make any projections about a reduction in the remand population as a result of the bill, but what might underlie that point is that, if you see a reduction in the prison population, resourcing will be made slightly easier for the Prison Service. Perhaps the council’s point is that successful implementation of the bill might lead to savings that might help it get further resources. It is a reasonable observation for the council to make, but, no, we are not looking to cut the prison budget to fund any of this.