Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have heard other governors say otherwise and that they think that the privacy and dignity of women in prison can be accommodated within the way that they deal with transgender prisoners. I have confidence in that view, but, of course, it will be subject to the current review.

If you have other questions, you can ask them after I have finished my answer, please.

Convener, I am happy to answer the question, but I would like to try to get through my answer before being interrupted, if possible.

As justice secretary, my responsibilities for the prison estate are, in my view, what are germane here. Prison rules—this addresses the point that Mr Findlay has made—state that people are

“able to self-declare that they are transgender and are supported to express the gender (or non-gender) with which they identify, with staff using correct pronouns.”

It is important to mention that, because those are the rules in England and Wales, which are underpinned by United Kingdom legislation over many years. That is the process that is followed by prisons in Scotland.

The policy was designed in 2014. It remained relatively uncontentious for most of the period up until now. As I have said, I have confidence in the system that is there, notwithstanding the changes that I announced. I think that those changes in policy were pretty consistent with what the Prison Service does already. Therefore, I do have confidence—

I think that you have heard that there is a lessons learned review on the particular case that has been mentioned and that that will feed into a larger review. The larger review will determine how we go forward.

I restate the fact that the policy that the SPS carried out was, first and foremost, to ensure the safety of all prisoners. The SPS has a very good track record of making sure that that is the case. Therefore, if somebody was admitted to a female prison—it is worth bearing in mind that we have both women and men in many of our prisons—they were held in segregation, to minimise the risk to other prisoners and staff. On top of that, we have provided the additional direction, which you have just mentioned, to make sure that people go to part of the male estate in the first instance.

I should say that there is an exception to that, which we stipulated to the Prison Service, which was that in any case where the SPS felt that it was imperative that that should not happen, it should get ministerial approval. That is the same as in other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales. That is the current situation. The overarching review will take things forward.

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.

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.