Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, Professor McKay. You have been involved in excellent work, so thank you very much for that. My questions follow on from the questions that the convener and Jamie Greene asked, because I am having difficulty visualising what the system might look like—forgive me for returning to a subject that we have covered.

As Jamie Greene said, we have heard from those in the police service that they work 24/7 and have a responsibility to keep people safe, so they have a duty to come out when they are called. Realistically, how is that going to change? Who would take the place of the police in a different system, and where would people be taken to if they were not taken to A and E?

I have been in forensic units, so I am familiar with those, and I used to represent mental health nurses, so I have a bit of knowledge about that. I am thinking about whether we have the places; we might have shut down too many places when we did the big reforms in the early 1990s. I am trying to visualise what the change will look like.

If mental health nurses took over, would they need to change their working patterns and be given new restraint powers? The circumstances might be difficult, and the police are called because they have those powers. Clearly, we want to avoid taking people to A and E. Anything that you can say to help me to visualise what will happen would be useful.

To be honest, from what you have illustrated, I do not see how things will change. Is there no one else to call when a person is identified as being in acute mental health distress? In circumstances in which the powers under section 297 would be used, who else would be contacted?

What service should people be referred to?

This is—I hope—a straightforward question. It follows on from Katy Clark’s question about who made the decision and all that. I am not trying to get you to say who made it, but I did not understand something.

There is a segregated unit in Barlinnie for sex offenders; I have actually been to the cells for individual solitary confinement. Why did the decision maker not just hold the prisoner in the segregated unit in the estate for assessment? That is a really important question, to answer now or to come back to the committee on at some point.

Is the problem that the 2014 policy is a self-ID policy, so you did not have a choice? It is really important to get to the bottom of that. If we want to move on from this, and if there are genuine lessons to be learned, we need to know why.

This seems like an obvious and sensible question that any member of the public would ask. Why did the prisoner need to go to Cornton Vale to be assessed and segregated? We have heard that there was no risk to women, but they could have been segregated somewhere else. I have a clear question. Why did the decision maker not hold Isla Bryson in another part of the male estate until a decision was made—albeit that I might not have liked the decision?

The decision maker chose not to do that.

Do you know why?

I am sorry, but I am not accepting that. You have already told the committee that the decision was signed off by headquarters, so nobody second guessed. Which is it? In evidence to the committee, you said that the decision was signed off by headquarters. Am I right?

So how was it second guessed?

Thank you.

I will ask Teresa Medhurst a similar question, as I am trying to get to the bottom of this. I know that you were not governor for the whole time period. You have probably heard the interview with a former prisoner who said:

“My whole time in prison”

I was

“on constant high alert, my nerves were frazzled with fear. These incredibly violent men were walking around the communal shower area naked and sometimes”—

I apologise for the language—

“clearly aroused. Myself and other women were in cubicles with only a curtain to protect us. I was shaking with fear.”

I raised that issue with the deputy governor. I have to confess that I was shocked at the defence of the policy at the time. If there is going to be change, I would welcome it.

What is your view on her comments? I was told, first, that what she said was not true. Secondly, I was told that women are not at any risk and that there are separate showering arrangements. However, that does not seem to bear out the testimony of women prisoners.

Sorry—I am not trying to be difficult; I am just trying to get to the bottom of this. As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, does it concern you that we have had a policy in place since 2014 that women’s groups have not been consulted on, even though they have raised concerns about it? Going forward, would you want to make sure that that changes?