Chamber and committees

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?

Good morning. The key question is: how do we move forward? However, I want to understand how we got to this point. That is important, because a lot of things went wrong.

I will start with the cabinet secretary. I have not raised this directly with you, but I have raised it with other ministers and with the SPS. I expressed my concern when the Katie Dolatowski case was live. Why did ministers not raise the issue with the SPS before now, given that, as we heard in answer to Russell Findlay, your officials phoned the SPS? I ask that question because I am sure that, as cabinet secretary, you are aware of the profile of women offenders. One statistic from the McMillan research is that 85 per cent of women offenders have reported adult sexual physical abuse. I am sure that you know all this.

Therefore, my first question is: why did ministers not raise the issue before now? We are talking about a policy that has been in place since 2014. For the sake of completion, I will quote Rhona Hotchkiss, who was vocal well before the decisions in question. She said:

“it is always an issue to have trans women in with female prisoners and ... the presence of male-bodied prisoners among vulnerable women causes them distress and consternation.”

Given what you have said, do you think that it is time to change the balance of the policy? Were you aware that women’s groups were not consulted on the design of the policy?

But, with respect, that is not what I am asking. I know that you have confidence in the system. I am asking you directly whether you were aware that, when the policy was developed, women’s groups were not consulted. Did anyone tell you that?

You seem to be questioning what was said. Again, I point to the statement that was made by Rhona Hotchkiss, the former governor of Cornton Vale. She said:

“... it is always an issue to have trans women in with female prisoners.”

That means that it affects not only one prisoner. Do you accept what Rhona Hotchkiss said?