Chamber and committees

First, what I have just said and the further assurance that was provided over the weekend do not in themselves say that any different decisions would be made by the Scottish Prison Service in relation to those two cases than have been made. The changes that have been announced in terms of the public assurance on Sunday do not change the Scottish Prison Service’s procedures.

In relation to further information, I am pretty sure that this is going to be discussed both in the chamber and in this Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee. I have mentioned already that I am writing to the committee. I have written to the committee today and I will write to it again next week.

In the meantime, I am happy to look at the requests that Russell Findlay has made. As far as possible, I am happy to provide the information, if I can, that he has asked for.

I have already explained that the person who is being talked about now was transferred to Cornton Vale, in accordance with existing policy, and was put in a segregated unit where there was no interaction with the rest of the prison population.

It is also true to say, as I have mentioned, that we have both males and females in a number of prisons in Scotland. I believe that assessment of the threat or risk is carried out by people who are far more expert in this than—[Interruption.]

I will, first of all, check whether any confidentiality agreements were entered into when those people were surveyed and asked questions in the review. I am happy to provide as much information as possible to Michelle Thomson. I will check those matters first and see what information can be passed on. A substantial number of women were consulted and provided their views. I am not certain of the basis on which their views were provided and whether there is a confidentiality requirement, but I am happy to provide as much information as I can.

The concerns that underlied that amendment were not dismissed at all. That was demonstrated by agreement to a competent amendment that was lodged by Gillian Martin, the effect of which is, for example, to allow the police to stop the process by putting in place a prevention order, should they have concerns about an individual who is applying for a gender recognition certificate. Those concerns were legitimate and were resolved by the Parliament in legislation that was passed by a large majority including representatives of all parties. I just wish that that democratic process was respected elsewhere.

Yes. As I have said before, I have complete confidence in the Prison Service’s ability to deal with such operational matters. Given the public concern over the recent cases, it was right to bring absolute clarity to the position and, therefore, to the process that has been set out to achieve that.

There are number of other interesting quotes from the assistant general secretary. He said that the system has worked extremely well, providing safety for prisoners and for prison staff—for whom, obviously, he has a particular responsibility. It would be useful for those people who are very concerned about the safety of prisoners—women and others—to look at the comments of Phil Fairlie in the interview that he gave today. They would find some real reassurance about the processes that are being followed.

I support the principle of gender self-ID. I have just said so. Presumably, Rachel Hamilton does not believe me when I tell her that the decision was not overturned but that, rather, a decision was taken by the Scottish Prison Service to take Isla Bryson to the male estate. That decision was made by the Prison Service, not by ministers. It is hard to proceed on the basis of a calm and considered debate on such things if the facts are misrepresented in such a way. I have confidence in the way that the prison service has conducted those decisions, and I believe in gender self-ID.

I agree with that. I think that I have already said that the process that the policy review is following is now entering the stage of consultation of trade unions. As I have mentioned, the review has already heard from other groups.

We should never accept that prison officers should take, if you like, whatever risk comes their way and that that is just what they are there to do. They have to be consulted. I draw a lot of comfort from what we have heard from prison staff representatives about how things are currently working. However, of course it is right that, as we review processes, the views of prison staff, who share the risk that has been described, are listened to and taken into account.

Any further action will be determined on the outcome of the wider policy review and, if any legislative changes are required, they will be taken forward, as is the ordinary course of such things. However, the Scottish Prison Service policies have in no way been changed or impacted by the recent passing of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which, in any event, as most of us know, is not yet in force.

On the first point that was raised by Pauline McNeill—as to why there was a change for the person who was mentioned, to go from Barlinnie to Cornton Vale—that is not a decision for ministers. We are not involved in such things and, despite what was said, we would not, in fact, be aware of them, as they are for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Prison Service.

It was also entirely consistent with the Scottish Prison Service policy from 2014 that that would be the prison—the women’s estate—for people who identify as women. That would be the normal practice. However, as to that point, as I am sure the member will be aware, many of our prisons have both males and females in the estates. That is true of a number of prisons—for example, Polmont, Edinburgh, Greenock and Grampian. However, as the assistant general secretary of the POA pointed out, that involves their being segregated and having no interaction with the general population, pending assessment—and their possible placing, as happened in this case, in the male estate.

As I mentioned, I cannot comment further on individual cases. I am happy to discuss offline with Pauline McNeill the other case that she mentioned, if that is possible. However, as I have demonstrated, in relation to the wider review that is being taken forward, it is the case that the interests and views of women, in particular, are being taken forward, have been listened to, have been canvassed and will form a part of the consideration of that wider review. That is just as it should be.

The Scottish Government is committed to building a safer Scotland that is free of sexual harassment and sexist behaviour. We are determined to tackle the scourge of sexual harassment wherever it happens, whether in public spaces, places of education or workplaces.

Through Scotland’s equally safe strategy, we are tackling the underlying attitudes, inequalities and culture that perpetuate that behaviour. We also support victims of abuse by investing record levels of funding, including significant levels of funding in front-line services, to support victims of violence against women and girls.