Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the question. I will not rehearse the arguments that were made at the time when the hate crime legislation was passed; I was not prepared to leave a gap in the law and in existing hate crime legislation for women. That does not mean that a future Government will not take forward a misogyny bill but, right here and now, I have come to the conclusion that, to put it bluntly, I am not having a gap in the law for women. That is my straightforward view.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 deliberately left a power to address the issue. The definition of sex fits well with the hate crime framework, in that it minimises any overlap with other characteristics, although there is always the potential for overlap. At the end of the day, it felt to me as though the gap that had been left was not justifiable, and I wanted to address it before the end of the parliamentary session.

Misogyny legislation differs from hate crime legislation in that the former is specifically gendered legislation and is a more nuanced approach. Baroness Kennedy led some excellent work to lay out the extent of the misogyny and harassment that women face in this country, if anyone was in any doubt about that.

It is complex legislation—I wish it was not thus, but it is. When 16 Scottish Government bills and 15 members’ bills are still to come to a conclusion before purdah, there is a practical reality that is regrettable. I do not think that Baroness Kennedy’s work in the area will be lost. In my view, there is an opportunity for us to strengthen the law with the SSI, and it is important that we do it because, I repeat, I am not having a gap in the law for women.

In short, yes. The hate crime legislative framework is a proven model for providing legal protections. Although there might be a range of views on the approach that was taken, or, indeed, on our not being able to progress with the misogyny bill, I am taking some comfort from the recognition that there is a gap in hate crime legislation and that it needs to be addressed. Of course, it is never as simple as just slotting things in. Philip, would you like to speak to that, since you have done the slotting in?

Of course, because these are serious, important and sensitive matters that are not without their complexity. Given the journey that we have travelled with hate crime law and its implementation, I do not expect to need to resolve any further knotty issues, but we will continue to engage with Police Scotland. I also have a series of engagements with other parties, some of which you have mentioned, that are understandably disappointed that the misogyny bill is not proceeding at this time.

Good morning, convener, and thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I thank the committee for accommodating my request to move this session from last Wednesday, due to stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. That is much appreciated.

I very much welcome the committee’s inquiry into drugs in prisons, which recognises the significance, harmful impact and dynamic nature of issues that relate to illegal drug and substance supply in prisons, including concerns about the rise in strength of synthetic drugs, the impact on people in prison—and, of course, prison staff—and the importance of access to effective rehabilitation and support, on which, I am aware, you have taken evidence.

As the committee is aware, there is a high and complex prison population, and issues that relate to preventing supply, keeping people safe and managing the impact of substance use in prisons is demanding, to say the least, for the Scottish Prison Service as well as for our national health service colleagues and other partners. I put on record my thanks for the hard work and dedication of the staff in those organisations in keeping safe the people in our care as well as their colleagues.

The health and wellbeing of those in the care of the Scottish Prison Service is a key priority. Having been Minister for Drugs Policy and now Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I have a strong appreciation of the importance of a strategic approach across health and justice. I know that the committee is interested in how the health and justice portfolios are co-ordinating to reduce deaths and support recovery, and in how lived experience and evidence are being embedded in strategy.

As you may be aware, I chair a cross-portfolio ministerial group on prisoner health and social care, which provides clear leadership and helps to ensure a joined-up strategic approach to health and social care in prisons. The vision for justice provides an overarching strategic approach, including focusing on person-centred approaches to reduce crime and harm in our communities and support rehabilitation by the most effective means possible. Our national mission to reduce drug deaths continues to focus on a public health approach to improve the treatment and care provided for people with drug issues. The Scottish Prison Service’s 10-year drug and alcohol strategy, which was published in February, sets out a framework for improving the outcomes of people in custody.

I am sure that you will want to ask about a range of issues in more detail, convener, and I look forward to the committee’s questions, but first, I hand over to Ms Todd.

I will briefly add to that. It is of fundamental importance to me, particularly as the chair of the cross-Government ministerial group, to knit together that collaboration between our national health service and the work that the Scottish Prison Service facilitates.

The committee will have heard me say before that, irrespective of where a citizen is residing, whether that is in the community or in custody, the equivalency of service and support in healthcare is imperative.

There are obvious changes and demands in and around delivering services in the context of safe and secure prisons, but, with regard to that collaborative work, what is being rolled out now is an improved healthcare referrals process. There is a revised memorandum of understanding between the Prison Service and the NHS. Crucially—and this is important in relation to the multi-agency working that Ms Todd referred to—more joint training is now taking place between the Prison Service and the NHS. That may sound like a technical point in relation to a target operating model, but I cannot, for a minute, underestimate the importance of getting consistency in the delivery of healthcare to our prisoners at a national level.

Actually, Mr Kerr, I answered your question when I said that I was intensively engaged with the Scottish Prison Service. That work will be built on through engagement with trade unions, victim support organisations and other justice partners. If further measures are necessary, I will, as I have always done, communicate them to Parliament as a whole and explain any action that I believe is required and why that action is necessary at any point in time.

They do, Mr Kerr, and I hope that you will hang on to that thought, particularly when the sentencing and penal policy commission reports later in the year.

I think that Edinburgh is an outlier, but we will send you information on that. Perhaps Ms Todd’s team can help. We will be more than happy to do that.

I very much recognise the impact of transfers, particularly if they are done without much warning. They are disruptive for the individual and their care, as well as for families. I am sure that you have heard evidence about that.

On person-centred care and continuity of care, the target operating model should help to provide consistency. It might not be the most politically sexy thing to talk about, but the improvements that are being made to clinical IT are important for the transfer and sharing of information. Right now, however, because of overcrowding and the work that the Prison Service has to do to keep serious organised crime nominals apart from one other to reduce the risk of violence or to reduce the risk of collaboration among some of those individuals, there is little scope for flexibility in adding in a very vulnerable and complex population when the prisons are full.

To pick up on your point about remand prisoners and throughcare, convener, the new national throughcare contract has enhanced investment to give enhanced capacity and, for the first time, it will enable male remand prisoners who have been released to be supported.

I will start, particularly because Ms Clark has spoken about fatal accident inquiries, and because the cut and thrust of the question cuts across all drug deaths. I agree entirely with the need for more accountability and transparency to drive a better understanding and, therefore, more systemic improvements regarding deaths in custody.

The number of deaths in custody in the last calendar year was 64, which was the highest ever. The figures tell us that, for the year before that—2022-23—30 per cent of deaths in custody were probable suicides, 15 per cent were due to drug misuse and 21 per cent were due to circulatory system health problems. Because of our older prison population, there is a high degree of natural causes among those figures. However, I will caveat that, because we see vast health inequalities in our prison population, which should not be ignored in any shape or form.

In my response to the fatal accident inquiry and the statement that I made to the Parliament on the FAI findings on deaths in custody with regard to William Lindsay and Katie Allen, I made a commitment to establish a national oversight mechanism. That will enable scrutiny of fatal accident inquiry determinations and oversight of implementation. It is accurate to say that, right now, there is no independent dedicated national oversight body that is looking at the broader framework and scrutinising these deaths in regard to analysis, public reporting and reporting on what the trends are.

This is not just about FAIs and deaths in custody. The same could be applied to NHS significant adverse event reviews and the “Death in Prison Learning Audit & Review”—the DIPLAR. I am talking at length—forgive me, convener.

Right now, I am exploring whether we can establish an independent national oversight mechanism without primary legislation. That is quite complex; the work is on-going and we are in the guts of it just now.

In the meantime, there is the ministerial advisory board, which will meet for the second time tomorrow and which I chair. That board is a small panel of independent experts that oversees the implementation of the FAI recommendations that I have committed to. It also means that there is something in place while we work on the national oversight mechanism.