Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government understands that crimes involving family pets can be upsetting and traumatic for the owner and the pet itself. We take all crimes, including those against pets, seriously. There are wide-ranging laws currently available in Scotland to deal with anyone who commits a crime involving a pet. Those include theft and robbery as well as a range of animal welfare offences such as animal cruelty.

We fully support law enforcement agencies taking effective enforcement action to deal with any offences involving pets as they consider necessary in any given case.

The first thing to say is that the Scottish Government will consider Maurice Golden’s proposed member’s bill as and when he formally provides further detail of his plans, including if and when he introduces the bill to Parliament.

In relation to Maurice Golden’s point about taking into account the welfare of the animal and—I think that he has previously made a point about this—the value of that pet to the family, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that courts do not take those matters into account. There is certainly no prohibition on the courts taking those matters into account.

We have a very good track record when it comes to how such cases are dealt with. Just under half of such crimes have been detected. Three years ago, the number of such crimes involving pets was 48. Two years ago, it went up to 60, but it came back down to 48 in the most recent year for which we have records. The dogs have been recovered in two thirds of those cases.

Therefore, we feel that the issue is dealt with effectively at the moment but, as I have said, we will wait to see what Maurice Golden proposes in his bill and will take a view on that at the time.

Police Scotland is one of the first police services in the United Kingdom to implement mental health and suicide intervention training for all officers, from probationary constables up to the rank of inspector, which benefits the workforce and the communities that they serve.

In addition, as first points of contact, staff in C3—command, control and co-ordination—division receive training in risk and vulnerability assessment, and staff who work in custody suites receive mental health awareness training.

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.

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.]