Chamber and committees

First, I agree that that is a sensible suggestion. If Jamie Greene will forgive me, I will have further discussions—one of which I am due to have tomorrow with the Criminal Justice Committee. I will see how the committee would best like that suggestion to be taken forward. However, I have no objection in principle to the point that has been made.

Given the public interest in the matter, it is as well that as many people as possible are aware of all facts. There are unfounded statements circulating—for example, on social media—so I mention again the idea of further reporting. I have mentioned the extent to which I am trying to keep the committee involved. I have written to it today and will write to it again next week. The commitment is that we will go back to the committee after the review, so the letter next week will be about the short-term review that will report this week and—of course—the wider review.

On the delay to the wider review, the review was hugely impacted by Covid. It is being taken very seriously, so, as I have mentioned, as well as analysis and consultation, we are now in discussion with the trade unions and legal services to ensure that everything is absolutely as it should be. I agree that it would have been more useful for us to have had the review now, but the pandemic cannot be wished away and it is what caused the delay.

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.

I have asked Teresa Medhurst, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, for an update on the progress of the policy review, and she has confirmed that the SPS’s policy review is being conducted in five stages. The policy initiation stage and the evidence and engagement stages have now been completed, and the policy review is now moving through the analysis, recommendations and authorise, and publish stages. The SPS anticipates the updated policy being published in the coming months. Following implementation, the policy will be subject to on-going monitoring and evaluations.

It would have made for a more illuminating discussion if Russell Findlay had listened to my answer before going on to his preset next question.

The simple fact is that, as I have said already, I trust the SPS to deal with this. It does not follow the practice in England and Wales, where the process is determined by the presence of a GRC. That is not how it is done in Scotland. In Scotland, if someone has a GRC, it does not give them the right to be transferred to the place of their choice. Here, every decision is carried out on the basis of risk. I trust the SPS to do that.

Of course, the Parliament and I will be interested in the outcome of the policy review. We can have a discussion about the review when it is published. However, as things stand, I trust the SPS, and my faith in it is borne out by its track record. When it has a case of a trans prisoner, all the appropriate assessments—including by health and possibly psychiatric services—are made. That is the right way to deal with these situations. If anyone does not think that it is, they can look at the SPS’s track record in this regard, which is exemplary, as it has ensured the safety of prisoners for many years.

Of course, if the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill had passed into law instead of being stopped by another Government—completely wrongly—it would not have changed the SPS’s approach to trans prisoners, which is not dependent on the possession of a gender recognition certificate. The possession of a GRC will continue to have a minimal impact on how the SPS manages transgender people. The important thing is that its process is one that is based on the assessment of risk—[Interruption.]—for the individual, for other prisoners and for prison staff. It has a tremendous track record in dealing with the management of that risk. I would suggest that the SPS is far more expert in assessing and dealing with that risk than any of us in this chamber.

This morning, I visited the SPS to discuss its management of risks in relation to serious and organised crime. The SPS is a fantastic organisation that manages risk every day of the week. It has a great track record in relation to trans prisoners and I have faith in its ability to evolve its policy to continue that track record.

It is an important point—[Interruption.]—and it bears repetition, because it has not been taken on board by some of those who are asking questions about it and are shouting just now.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not change the SPS’s approach to trans prisoners, which is not dependent on the possession of a GRC. The possession of a GRC will continue to have a minimal impact on how the SPS manages transgender people in its care. Decisions on placement and management are not based solely on the possession of a GRC but are based on a range of multiple factors and thorough individualised assessments. The SPS will retain the ability to place an individual in an estate that does not necessarily correspond to the gender on their GRC if it determines that not doing so would place that individual or others at risk. It is a risk-based approach.

Of course, the GRR bill is not currently in force, so it is not relevant to any current cases.

In relation to the policy review and its outcome, both Pauline McNeill and Russell Findlay have the ability to question that in detail, as members of the Criminal Justice Committee as well as the Parliament.

I confirm to Pauline McNeill that a rights-based approach is taken now. The rights of everybody concerned are taken into account by the SPS. Again, the Criminal Justice Committee can go through the process of inviting the SPS in to ask it about those issues. The approach that we have taken is rights based and assesses the risks that are involved.

As well as that, during the course of the consultation that was undertaken as part of the current review, prisoners, including women prisoners, were consulted on the process, so they will have fed into the outcome of the policy review.

Therefore, I am content with the process that is there just now and I think that the SPS has a tremendous track record. Of course, I want to look at what the policy review comes back with, as will Pauline McNeill and the Criminal Justice Committee. At that point, if we remain dissatisfied, we can ask further questions. I am not dissatisfied—I trust the SPS to do what it is doing in this area, and its track record has shown that it is more than capable of assessing the risks.

I want to be clear that Scotland welcomes people from all over the world. Over successive generations, migrants and refugees have greatly contributed to our society and brought diversity to our communities. Racism, in any form, is abhorrent and wholly unacceptable.

Counterterrorism is a reserved matter and is delivered through the United Kingdom Government CONTEST strategy. The Scottish Government is engaging actively with the Home Office to ensure that the recently announced review of the strategy appropriately reflects the situation and takes into consideration the terrorism threat throughout the UK, including in Scotland.

The operation of counterterrorism in Scotland is a matter for Police Scotland, taking account of the specific code of practice for counterterrorism stop and search at the border, as issued by the Home Office.

I agree with Maggie Chapman that, in relation to the threat of terrorism and the assessment of it, Police Scotland holds the biggest piece of the jigsaw. It looks regularly at the issues that Maggie Chapman has raised.

Police Scotland should operate at all times with fairness, integrity and respect, and irrespective of ethnicity. The chief constable has made clear his commitment that Police Scotland must become an actively anti-racist organisation.

In respect of stop and search, the code of practice in Scotland was developed by an independent advisory group and was approved by the Scottish Parliament. That code of practice, which came into force on 11 May 2017 and was reviewed in 2019, sets out clearly the rules for when and how the police in Scotland can use stop and search.

Police Scotland undertakes excellent work in dealing with domestic abuse incidents, but the recent report by His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary and comments about the victim experience highlight that more must be done.

Although operational matters are for the chief constable, we remain fully committed to using the available resources to support the delivery of effective and responsive policing. We continue making changes to make it easier for people to report incidents and for perpetrators to be appropriately dealt with, helping us to realise our vision of Scotland as a place where women and girls live free from violence and abuse.